Babel Inc

by Kerry Bolton

  American news media have referred to the U.S. State Department as a primary influence in pushing multicultural agendas in France. In a report for The Christian Science Monitor, Anita Elash wrote that ‘The U.S. embassy in France has become a key promoter of Muslim and minority rights as part of a long-term strategy to ease the threat of terrorism.’[42] As we have seen from the Rivkin memo, the U.S. strategy goes well beyond the globalist catchphrase of heading off Muslim radicalism, which, as we have also seen, has been backed by the U.S. in Serbia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. Islamic migration and the support of Muslim enclaves in Europe are used to fundamentally change the character of Europe.

  Returning to the activities of Abdelaziz Dahhassi, Elash states that ‘it was the U.S. State Department that helped Mr. Dahhassi’s Lyon-based Association for the Convergence of Respect and Diversity finally get off the ground. . . . “I’m not saying we couldn’t have done it without them, but their support is very important,” he says. “The Americans have a very interesting vision which can be very enriching for France.”‘[43] Here we have an example of how the globalists are channelling Muslim migrant discontent in multicultural Europe into an ‘American vision’; that is, a cosmopolitan vision designed to make the ‘American Dream’ of accumulating consumer goods the Universal Dream in a Global Shopping Mall, as alluded to with pride by the Afro-American expatriate in Paris, Dr. Wells at her U.S. Embassy-sponsored seminars. Elash reported in 2011:

  Over the next several months, U.S. embassy staff will work with Dahhassi to secure funds and expertise from public and private U.S. sources to help establish the think tank’s program. Dahhassi says the focus will be to ‘find another approach’ to addressing racism directed at all minority groups in France, and that it will likely include a debate over the divisive issue of whether France could benefit from an affirmative-action program.[44]

  Such a programme of Affirmative Action, based on the U.S. model, would see ethnic minorities given favouritism in employment and university placements, with lesser qualified applicants being promoted over better qualified French Whites. Such a programme would also likely see applicants to medical schools, for example, be selected on the basis of their minority ethnicity rather than their academic accomplishments. That is a price of ‘ending racism.’

  The Rivkin offensive is part of a long-time programme of undermining French identity. France, like much of the rest of the world, is however fighting a losing battle against globalisation. Jeff Steiner’s column ‘Americans in France’ refers to the manner by which the French at one time resisted the opening of the fast food franchise McDonald’s as ‘part of an American cultural invasion.’ Steiner wrote:

  . . . That seems to be past as McDonalds has so become a part of French culture that it’s not seen as an American import any longer, but wholly French. In short, McDonalds has grown on the French just like in so many other countries.

  I’ve been to a few McDonalds in France and, except for one in Strasbourg that looks from the outside to be built in the traditional Alsacien style, all McDonalds in France that I have seen look no different than their American counterparts.

  Yes, there are those that still curse McDo (They are now a very small group and mostly ignored.) as the symbol of the Americanization of France and who also see it as France losing its uniqueness in terms of cuisine. The menu in a French McDonalds is almost an exact copy of what you would find in any McDonalds in the United States. It struck me as a bit odd that I could order as I would in the United States, that is in English, with the odd French preposition thrown in.

  If truth were told, the French who eat at McDonalds are just as much at home there as any American could be.[45]

  This seemingly minor example is actually of much importance in showing just how a culture as strong as that of, until recently, an immensely proud nation, can succumb, especially under the impress of marketing towards youngsters. It is an example par excellence of the standardisation that American-imposed corporate culture entails. It is what the globalist oligarchy desires on a world scale, standardisation right down to what one eats. It is notable that the vanguard of the initial resistance to the opening of McDonald’s came from farmers, a traditionalist segment of Europe’s population that are becoming increasingly anomalous, and will under the globalist regime become an extinct species in the process of agricultural corporatisation, where the family farm becomes extinct.

  Nonetheless, given France’s historical role of maintaining sovereignty in the face of U.S. interests, she remains one of the few potentially annoying states in Europe; hence her being first on the line of the globalist offensive using multiculturalism. However, the concern remains, as alluded to in the Rivkin memo, that the French, despite their acceptance of McDonald’s, and their liking for American trash TV, will translate the remnants of their ‘xenophobia’ into the election to office of a stridently anti-globalist party, as reflected in the electoral ups and downs of the Front National, whose policy would not be in accord with either U.S. foreign policy, or with privatisation and cultural Americanisation. Hence the Front National, like other anti-globalist parties, can be attacked with red-herring slogans about ‘racism’ and ‘hate’ to deflect from the real concern, which is opposition to globalisation. The militants of the Left with slogans such as ‘Open Borders’ hardly credit being regarded as opponents of globalisation, when they accept the fundamentals of globalist ideology. This is a major reason for Rivkin’s far-reaching subversive and interventionist program to assimilate Muslims into French society, which in so doing would also have the result of casting French consciousness into a more thoroughly cosmopolitan mould. The intention is clear enough in the Rivkin Embassy documents where it is stated that the Embassy will monitor the effects of the ‘outreach’ program on the ‘decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.’

  Some conservative observers immediately recognised the U.S. agenda, criticising the United States for trying to undermine French values by imposing failed U.S. policies on how to deal with ethnic minorities:

  ‘They are criticizing us because we are not the United States, or more precisely, because we do not resemble them,’ blogger Christine Tasin wrote on a website for The Republican Resistance, a non-partisan group established last year to defend what it sees as French values. ‘[It] is a strategic plan to get France to do whatever the U.S. wants’?[46]

  Ivan Rioufol, of the conservative newspaper Le Figaro, stated that ‘The American analysis, which seems to say that the France of the future will be the France of the immigrant suburbs, is very disparaging to native French people.’[47]

  Multicultural Europe Pushed by the United States

  While France is among the greatest challenges to deconstruct through multiculturalism, because of its persistent suspicion of the United States, she paradoxically has a fatal flaw: the French Republic must at least pay lip-service to the ideals of the 1789 French Revolution; the same ideals which had also inspired the American Revolution of 1776. Hence, as the Rivkin memo mentions, multiculturalism can subvert France through an appeal to the Republic’s extreme liberal foundations. The founding slogan of the French Republic was ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ which leaves France open to globalist subversion by manipulating its own foundation myths, and Rivkin et al. have been quick to recognise this.

  However, the globalist offensive is intended to bring ruin to the traditional foundations of the whole of Europe. The European Institute (EI), Washington-based, despite what its name suggests, was founded to promote the subservience of Europe to the United States, as part of a common globalist drive. The Institute states that it has the backing of ‘top level representatives from the U.S. Administration and Congress, the European Commission, Council and Parliament, European Embassies, major foundations and global corporations from both Europe and the United States.’[48] It is therefore yet another of the s
eemingly endless NGOs, think tanks, fronts and lobbies pushing the globalist agenda.

  The co-chair of the EI Board is Yves-André Istel, formerly a director of Lehman Brothers and other banks, and ‘currently Senior Advisor to Rothschild Inc. and a member of its Investment Banking Committee,’ among much else.[49] As with other such organisations, EI combines a wide range of luminaries from finance, industry, policy-making and academia.[50] Therefore when EI gives an opinion, it does so as a significant think tank among the globalist network. EI states of Rivkin and of the United States’ multicultural agenda not just in France but across Europe:

  The U.S. State Department has some new pro-active policies toward Muslims and other minorities in Europe that seem to mark a salient change. For example, Charles Rivkin isn’t your traditional American ambassador in Paris: a political appointee with a career background in entertainment, he is regularly spotted doing things like this: hosting hip-hop artists and ethnic-minority politicians at embassy receptions; inaugurating a large art mural in Villiers-le-Bel, the site of major urban riots in 2007; visiting a youth cultural center and engaging in debates with the audience; dropping in on embassy-sponsored seminars on social issues and engines of change; or surprising French high school students by bringing along Hollywood star Samuel L. Jackson for a discussion about his growing up in the segregated American South. . . . Since taking up his post in summer 2009, Rivkin has pursued a vigorous public effort to connect with the poorer, multiracial suburbs of major French cities . . .[51]

  Rivkin goes where the French Government does not, with the purpose of harnessing ethnic resentment into a globalist device that can be wielded to subdue France. That is clear enough from the actions of Rivkin, and comments in the Rivkin memo and descriptions such as those of the EI, which must of course be read between the lines of rhetoric about ‘human rights.’ It should be noted also from the above passage that State Department interference is also being directed at ‘other minorities in Europe.’ The report continues:

  In what amounts to a significant but largely unreported shift in U.S. diplomacy, embassies are broadening their traditional focus on national elites and established leaders in politics, trade-unions and the like, and expanding the mix to include under-represented minorities. In France, this new focus has been dubbed by Rivkin as a ‘Minority Engagement Strategy’ aimed at helping potential leaders in the Muslim banlieues learn the tools of U.S.-style democratic change. Part of this outreach (and its political acceptability) is that it includes mainstream French leaders, hoping to raise consciousness in their ranks about the advantages of overcoming social exclusion and promoting real diversity and not just pay lip service to the notion of it. This new U.S. approach is now being applied in many democratic countries (and in some, notably in the Middle East, that aspire to be democratic)—an effort to walk the walk that goes with the pro-democracy talk of public diplomacy emanating from Washington.[52]

  What should be noted here is that:

  Ethnic minority leaders are being tapped along with so-called ‘national elites’ (leaders in politics business and labour) as delegations for indoctrination into globalism.

  The inclusion of ‘mainstream leaders’ ensures acceptability of a strategy to radicalise ethnic agitators, without causing alarm among the targeted states’ government.

  The inclusion of the ‘national elites’ allows them to be indoctrinated into multiculturalism, especially when they are part of the same programmes that include the ethnic minorities, allowing for a heavy does of inculcated self-guilt and showing that the ‘American Dream’ is superior to centuries of European values and traditions.

  Muslims in banlieues learn the tools of U.S.-style ‘democratic change,’ which sounds suspiciously like they are being trained and indoctrinated with the same techniques that have long been used to foment the ‘colour revolutions’ in states marked for ‘regime change.’

  The State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), which selects potential leaders for training, is now focusing on ethnic minority leaders; ‘now targeting promising young people from Muslim and other minority communities.’[53] Those chosen are brought to the United States on tours to see the wonders of the American Dream. They include ‘an influx of youthful or young professional “outsiders” that the U.S. embassy considers “promising” in their own communities and perhaps eventually on a larger, even national stage.’[54] What seems flagrant is that the then-U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, ‘recently noted, many of the leaders of the Egyptian movement that overthrew the old regime in Egypt had “benefited from the visitation program”—by which she meant the State Department’s IVLP outreach and training.’[55] These youths, who sparked the supposedly ‘spontaneous’ rioting in Egypt, which brought down a hitherto friendly regime that had become awkward to deal with,[56] had been trained in the United States. Garrett states for European Affairs that:

  The French case is particularly interesting because France has traditionally been wary of any ‘U.S. influence’ liable to infiltrate the nation. But the current innovation in U.S. outreach seems to enjoy a benign reception and even encouragement in Paris both in government and in the Muslim community.[57]

  Garrett relates the United States’ recent inroads into France to both ‘deft political management,’ and the processes of globalisation: ‘In fact, this American policy seems to be benefiting from an astute analysis in Paris of domestic political imperatives in a globalizing world, and also from deft U.S. diplomatic management.’[58]

  The program goes beyond ‘talent-scouting and wooing’ to include a more ambitious, grass-roots effort aimed at actively encouraging leaders of minorities in France and in other countries across Europe and seeking to help them learn more about how to take full advantage of the potential for democratic change in their societies.[59]

  The United States regards the presently disaffected and unassimilated ethnic minorities, not only in France, but ‘across Europe,’ as the up-and-coming leaders of a melting-pot Europe that is no longer identifiably European. This is also indicated by Garrett’s comparison of the U.S.-directed programmes with the experiences of Obama as a community leader in Chicago, which was the start of his long march to the White House (keeping in mind the patronage Obama received from the United States’ oligarchs). Garrett states however that the programme was initiated by President George W. Bush, ‘to export some of the American experience of minority integration to other countries in Europe and the Middle East: now it is touted in Washington as part of the tool kit of “smart power” as advocated by Mrs. Clinton to creatively promote transatlantic cooperation and American diplomatic interests.’[60] Note that Garrett cites then Secretary of State Clinton as openly stating that these programmes in the name of ‘human rights’ and democracy’ are in reality nothing but masks for the expansion of globalist interests, described as ‘transatlantic cooperation and American diplomatic interests.’ In referring again to the Rivkin memo, Garrett describes what the United States is trying to impose on France:

  France, with its five to six million Muslims (an estimated one-tenth of the population) is obviously an important test case for this newer form of outreach. ‘Diversity’ in France has been official dogma that in practice is often largely ignored. Perhaps because the current French government is aware of this contradiction, the U.S. embassy has made no secret of its work: officials have relied on ‘an annual public affairs budget of $3 million’ to sponsor or fund a large number of small-scale programs, including ‘urban renewal projects, music festivals and conferences.’ They have ‘formed a network of partnerships with local governments, advocacy groups, entrepreneurs, students and cultural leaders in the troubled immigrant enclaves outside France’s major cities’—to coach them, support them and encourage them—with a view to turning cultural outsiders and social rebels into part of broadening French national elite. Just how direly restricted
the current French elite can appear, not only to Americans but also to French leaders themselves, emerges from another passage in the Wikileaks cable from U.S. embassy-Paris . . .[61]

  Here we see:

  France is a test case for a multimillion dollar programme that is aimed at being replicated throughout Europe, among ethnic minorities, and as previously indicated, not only Muslims.

  The U.S. plays on the French Republic’s founding doctrine of revolutionary liberalism to undermine the ‘xenophobia’ that has maintained French culture. The United States can claim that its programmes are merely expressing the true French Republican heritage, rather than foreign or subversive.