A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  It thus goes without saying that for Monbiot (a man renowned for being repulsed by Antlanticism), the NAI’s neo-messianism can only have a tragic outcome. Let us then quote him one last time, as he expresses his thoughts in a most inimitably British way: ‘Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell’.

  ***

  This last remark is the source of yet another clarification on the kinship that ties the neo-messianic NAI to Islamism. Both are driven by a desire to impose Good upon the whole planet, and both are drowned in a similar sort of chaos. However, one should not assume that the NAI and its neoconservatives are ‘anti-Islamic’ and long to wage a holy war, i.e. a crusade, upon Islam, as imagined by countless Muslims and the Islamophilic and hysterical anti-Americans of Europe. Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ also includes North Korea and virtually every rebellious country that rejects the new American world order. Although Islamism does indeed manifest a blatant hatred for the USA, the latter is not mutual. To emphasise this fact, Bush went to a mosque in Chicago the day after the 9/11 attacks in order to pay his solemn homage. The tragedy is that, as a result of the strategic imbecility displayed by the American elephant, the Muslim world interprets the US policy as ‘a war waged by the Judeo-Crusaders upon Islam’ (to use the consecrated expression), which is anything but true.

  In an article entitled How Religion Influences the President published in The International Herald Tribune (19/05/2003), Bill Keller explains that, having come out of rehab, former alcoholic Bush became a born-again evangelistic Christian zealot. Under his rule, the distinction between state and religion is gradually vanishing. According to Keller, Bush, a former Methodist now turned Evangelist, is characterised by a fanatical and romantic sort of faith, one that demands that he strives to do Good, without however specifying the latter’s exact ethical definition. It is a faith that lacks any ‘precise agenda’ or well-defined moral programme. Hence the risk of drifting into an unscrupulous good conscience while simultaneously believing that, regardless of one’s behaviour, one is acting in the name of God and the Greater Good, even when committing horrendous atrocities. Keller also highlights a novel ambition among Republican politicians: the desire to become the political party that represents all those who abide by the Bible, thus bringing together, for the very first time, American Catholics, Protestants (including the Mormons, who are often rich and influential) and Jews.

  B. The Militarism of Good

  Power, power! Such is the keyword of the American culture. The NAI pushes this syndrome to its limit, basing its stances on Hollywood movies. America thus holds a fascination for power.

  The American ‘will to power’ is not subject to criticism in and of itself, since it is founded upon realism and obviously comes across as being more intelligent than the blunt and self-righteous pacifism currently advocated by Europeans. What we are facing here, however, is a trivial and low-end modality of the will to power, one that the NAI has taken to unheard of extremes and is thus akin to plain and simple suicidal stupidity. A good example of this is found in the manner in which the Americans allowed themselves to sink deeper into the Iraqi quagmire only to show off their muscles, violating international regulations in the process and ultimately asking the ‘international community’ for military support so as to maintain order.

  The contradiction between the fascination for military power and the ‘zero killed’ imperative demanded by the American public opinion is blatant. And there is yet another, often emphasised contradiction: a mixture of power quantitativism (a desire for things to be ever larger, more expensive, stronger, higher, richer, more violent, etc.) and ethical-religious justification. Do not assume the latter to be dishonest and a mere vulgar pretext. Biblical dramatics and a messianic sort of spirituality have, to a great extent, been internalised by the ‘militarism of Good’ and thus partake of it.

  ***

  The NAI is reinvesting itself most intensely into the American puritan tradition. One cannot possibly imagine G. W. Bush having sexual relations with one of his secretaries, as Clinton once did. There is a huge difference between the neoconservatives and the Kennedy (Irish Catholic) clan, whose history is soaked in scandals, mafia-like assassinations and tragic drinking binges, always sailing across the murky waters that lie between the jet set, the showbiz world, the criminal underworld and politics. The Kennedy era was that of the Borgias.

  The Bush era, by contrast, is of an entirely different nature and constitutes a unique development in American history. Although it cannot be classified, it is characterised by two striking features:

  1) Following a rigged electoral process, G. W. Bush took over from his own father. This marked the rise of the Texan ‘petropolitical’ dynasty, whose members seized power; one would think this has taken place in Syria or Korea, the lands of dynastic presidents.

  2) The involvement of the Bush clan and its neoconservative entourage in the signing of armament contracts indicates that the American foreign policy is in a state of confusion between serving the personal interests of American leaders and the alleged interests of the USA itself.

  ***

  The financial / oil motivations behind war do not seem sordid at all to the American politicians that wage it. As part of their Protestant ethics, any and all profits are allowed provided that the cause is just. The same applies to rewards. The Bush family has liberated Iraq and is thus entitled to take full advantage of its oil reserves. Such are the American ethics of vigilantism.

  C. Israelism?

  What accounts for the pro-Israeli attitude embraced by the Bush administration? Everyone knows that the Sharon government enjoys the full support of the current Republican administration, which favours it above all others, and that one of the reasons behind the war in Iraq is a pro-Israeli stance unequalled in the entire course of recent American history, when, traditionally speaking, the Republicans have always been less inclined to support Israel than the Democrats. So why such a reversal?

  The first explanation is that conservative Christians, who were all once rather hostile towards Jewish milieus, have recently proceeded to rally behind the Israeli cause. This constitutes a genuine political earthquake in the USA. The Washington Post clarifies this:

  For decades on end, Jews looked upon Christians with a mixture of suspicion and fear. […] However, the crisis faced by Israel has repeatedly demonstrated the simple truth that evangelical Christians are currently Israel’s stoutest supporters.

  Indeed, a total of 62 % of conservative Christians are pro-Israeli, compared to 26 % of secular American Democrats! (These rates stem from a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in June 2002. This is quite the novelty, since anti-Jewish attitudes are traditionally encountered among Republicans). The reasons for this convergence between the Jewish establishment and the Christian Right are religious in essence for the Christians themselves, who have been moved by the civil war that has been tearing Israel apart, but political from the Jewish perspective. These Protestants are (re)discovering their biblical and Hebraic roots. In an article published by The New York Times on the 2nd of May 2002, Christian chronicler Ralph Reed remarked that there was ‘an undeniable and strong spiritual connection between Israel and the Christian faith’. James DeLoach, who works as a pastor in Boston, has established The Jewish Temple Foundation in his desire to destroy the esplanades of mosques in Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple of Solomon! Doctor John Walvoord, a Protestant theologian from Dallas and a professor at the Southwestern School of Bible Studies, teaches his followers that ‘God only cares for his Sons, the Jews and the Gentiles, but is indifferent to Muslims, Buddhists and all other faiths’. Some of these ‘Zionist Christians’, as they are typically referred to in the USA, have established a syncretism between Protestantism and Judaism (the theory of ‘the Return of Christ’) and, just like Jerry Falwell and Randall Price (the founder of the World of the Bible Ministries Protestant lobby), venture even further than radical Zionist Jews by advocating the existen
ce of a Jewish monotheistic state free of any and all Arab presence and stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile (Eretz Israel), in accordance with Abraham’s alleged wishes.

  On their part, American Jews (and especially the famed and powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the AIPAC, which acts as the principal transmission tool for Israeli interests to the American authorities and is regularly accused of being ‘the real US government’ in the anti-Jewish press) have not signed this pact with the Protestant Republican Right for religious or emotional reasons, but because of their cynical political realism. Abraham Foxman, who runs the Anti-Defamation League (one of the most influential Jewish lobbies), has made the following public declaration:

  The differences between them [the Christians] and us are insurmountable. This does not, however, mean that we are to reject their support, which we are grateful for, especially since the Christians do not ask for anything in return for their aid.

  This is where we can make perfect sense of the new strategy adopted by the Bush administration when granting Sharon its unconditional support and taking military action against the diabolical and anti-Jewish Saddam Hussein:

  1) One must appeal to the now Zionistic conservative Christian electorate, whose members represent the very pillar of Republican electoral support.

  2) One must attract Jewish voters and flatter the powerful mediatic networks of this ‘community’, as the latter have always been inclined to support the Democrats. Traditionally, Jewish voters have always been in favour of Democratic candidates, as has been the case with nearly all influential, mediatic and financial networks, to such an extent that a great number of Jews actually endorsed Al Gore against Bush, whose Justice Minister, Ashcroft, had a widespread reputation for being anti-Semitic… The Bush administration is thus trying to turn the tide. Religion, electioneering and petropolitics are all closely interlinked...

  Nevertheless, several Jewish intellectuals have criticised this ‘historic compromise’ between the Jewish and Christian Rights for being fanatical and suicidal. The Republican pro-Zionistic attitude has equally been targeted. Allan C. Brownsfeld, the director of Issues (the quarterly published by yet another Jewish lobby, the American Council for Judaism), states:

  All of this constitutes a dangerously confused mess of religious, electoral and foreign policy elements. Such bed-sharing and unnatural embraces can only yield the most bitter fruit.

  ***

  How and why has the Bush clan become pro-Israeli? Indeed, this represents quite an upheaval in the American domestic policy. Bush Senior was actually renowned for being anti-Israeli, and the Jewish community had little love for him. His Secretary of State, James Baker, was both known and hated for having made the following remark: ‘Fuck the Jews! They don’t vote for us anyway!’ Furthermore, the Jews used to consider the Republican Party to be hostile to their cause. When Bush defeated Al Gore in the American presidential elections, American and Israeli Jews felt very worried, especially considering the fact that the Bush clan has been a linchpin of the Texas oil business, a sphere in which Arabs feature very prominently. Then came a divine surprise: ‘Bush Junior’ turned out to be the most pro-Israeli American President of all!

  What we are thus witnessing is a political revolution: traditionally, it was always the Democrats who the Jews (and the various ethnic minorities) voted for, while the Republicans were suspected of being latently anti-Jewish; nowadays, however, it is the latter who come across as being more Judeophilic and pro-Israeli than anyone else. A survey conducted by Gallup in June 2002 revealed that more than 66 % of Republican voters sympathise with Israel rather than with the Palestinians, compared to a mere 40 % among the supporters of the Democratic Party. This is due to the 9/11 shock that has stricken the versatile American public opinion, where a reconciliation has taken place between conservative Christians and Jews, who now stand united against ‘Islamic terrorism’ (although their relations were once characterised by very intense mutual hostility). Bush has jumped at the opportunity: he intends to be the first American President to rob the Democrats of Jewish votes and prove James Baker wrong: ‘By giving Sharon and the Israelis our full support, we will attract the Jewish public opinion and its mediatic and financial power’, he must have thought to himself. As explained by analyst Fatty Kay (in Times Online),

  … in the past, the Bush clan cared very little about Jewish voters, who represented a mere 2 % of the overall electorate, but it has now taken heed of their mediatic and financial influence.

  Bush therefore proceeded to turn his coat.

  He decided to turn a blind eye to the colonisation of the occupied territories and to become entirely pro-Israeli, since he wants to be re-elected in 2004.

  Only the future will tell whether this calculating behaviour will be fruitful, because there are many other ‘influencer’ groups (a Canadian term meaning ‘lobbyist’) currently on the rise in the USA.

  There is a constantly repeated cliché, one that is due to an incomplete awareness of global political events, as well as to a pro-Palestinian passion fraught with victimhood: if the USA were to retract its support for Israel and the latter ceased to oppress the poor Palestinians, Islamic terrorism would simply go up in smoke. Islamophile Alain de Benoist expressed this very platitude in an undated online communiqué entitled American Hegemonism or the Genuine Meaning of the Iraqi War:

  Obstinately, Washington refuses to acknowledge the fact that the neo-colonial situation faced by the Palestinian people is the essential cause behind global Islamist terrorism.

  This is a most absurd remark for anyone who knows that the Saudi terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were, above all, ‘protesting’ against the US military presence in the Arab peninsula, as they themselves admitted. And what about the Iranian attacks that shook Paris in the 1980s? And the hundreds of terrorist acts that have taken place on 3 different continents over the past 15 years? Is it all the result of the Palestinian situation? In truth, the problem cannot be accounted for on the sole basis of the attacks conducted in Israel. On the contrary, terrorism is an inherent part of the global conquest with which Islamism targets the non-Muslim world, the very same Islamism that uses all possible pretexts to claim that it is being persecuted and aggressed when, in actual fact, it is the Islamists themselves who are the only aggressors.

  Chapter III: The Militaristic Option

  A. The Realistic and Insane Aspects of American Imperialism

  So as to confirm what has already been stated, here are some excerpts taken from a document published in September 2000 by the Republican think-tank known as the Project for the New American Century and drafted by G. W. Bush’s team, namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. The document is entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Interestingly enough, it was written prior to the 9/11 2001 attacks, which seems to imply and prove that these attacks merely served to accelerate an already established plan. So, hold on tight!

  We must seize power in the Persian Gulf region, whether Saddam Hussein is there or not. The American presence on this soil is more important than the question of Saddam’s regime. We must anticipate a plan that would allow us to maintain global American pre-eminence, preventing the emergence of a rival power and shaping an international security policy in accordance with American principles and interests. The USA’s main mission is to claim victory in several wars. The American forces present in foreign countries are the “cavalry” of the new American frontiers. Peace missions must be headed by the USA, not the UN. Admittedly, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya are all potential enemies, but we must watch out for Europe, which could become a power rivalling the USA. We must reinforce the American military presence in South-East Asia, which should pave the way for China’s “democratisation” (in the Orwellian Newspeak, “democratisation” does not mean “democracy”, but rather “Americanisation”). We must also dominate the Internet and cyberspace, and despite international prohibitions, the USA should develop n
ew non-lethal weapons, especially electronic and biological ones, as well as new and advanced microbial forms that could exclusively target specific genotypes and thus become highly interesting weapons.

  ***

  Ever since the Vietnam war, the American foreign policy has, unlike cultural imperialism, been unable to achieve its objectives and is turning out to be counterproductive for the USA itself, especially in relation to Islam. Let us give a few recent examples.

  1) Supported by Giscard’s France, the USA contributed to overthrowing the Iranian Shah and establishing Khomeiny in his place. As a result, Islamism was provided with an ideal launch pad.

  2) Believing itself to be playing a winning card, the USA granted Afghan Islamists its full support against Brezhnev’s foolish Soviets and their moribund Communism. It ‘reared’ Bin Laden, established the Taliban and reinforced Wahhabism, which betrays utter historical ignorance.

  3) During the Gulf War of 1991, the undeclared American objective was to reclaim the Kuwaiti oil resources confiscated by Saddam Hussein. The secondary and unexpected outcome, however, was that the USA lost its Saudi ally, whose oil reserves are of an entirely different size compared to the Emirates’.

  4) The Kosovo war and the military aggression against Serbia, which were meant to establish allied Muslim states at the heart of the European continent, facilitated the founding of uncontrollable governments and powers in Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia. The latter are prone to Islamism and jihad and are violently hostile to Washington. They will thus become terrorist bases that fight American interests in Europe.

  5) Not only does the USA’s virtually unconditional support of Israel only serve to victimise Palestinian Arabs and reinforce global combative jihad, but it ultimately paves the way for Israel’s inevitable defeat.