A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  America has moved on from being a global force of order to one of disorder. Todd says: ‘There is something horrifying about watching Doctor Jekyll turn into Mister Hyde right before our very eyes’. Bush Junior has brought radical destruction upon the ‘New World Order’ established by his father. He has alienated himself from France, Germany, Russia and even Turkey, without having any means of economic response against these countries. Militarily speaking, the USA is powerless not just against China, but also against North Korea, Iran, Syria and others. With a deficit of 500 billion dollars a year, it no longer has the necessary means to pursue its global imperialism.

  Although a country of propaganda, publicity and communication, the USA has suffered a crushing defeat in the face of the international public opinion: it is no longer perceived as the empire of ‘Good’, but that of Evil, warmongering, bombardments, blunders, disorder, and oil mischief. The Americans, whose administration denounces the existence of rogue states, are looked upon as mobsters and gangsters and suspected of being the worst of all thugs (Al Capone), when all that they longed for was to be seen as virtuous puritans. The USA’s image has undergone a sort of ‘Chicago-isation’. This represents a terrible ordeal for the Americans: the cowboy pastor is weeping because people take him for a vile bastard that holds up banks. ‘Why have we, those who embody the Good, become the target of such negative sentiments?’, the gullible Bush cries to himself. The King has been shamed.

  ***

  In Emmanuel Todd’s opinion, even the American victor never ceased to grow weak following his defeat of the USSR at the end of the Cold War, which applies to the technological sphere as well. Boldly, Todd states:

  The USA has a lot of credentials, but these are typical of declining powers. A technologically dynamic industry would never worry about showing off its credentials, since it remains aware of the fact that its advancement is so rapid that none could ever manage to equal it. If America persists in its tendency to “seek out” its researchers abroad, this is due to its own population’s inability to reproduce itself in an intellectually and technologically efficient manner. It does produce solicitors, financial experts, etc., but as far as industry is concerned (an industry which lies at the very heart of technological progress), America does not fare too well.

  Such remarks are heart-warming and reassuring, and we would love to believe them… Todd has, however, ventured a little too far there. Is he not rather oblivious to the formidable effort made by the American federal state in matters of research?

  There are of course other declinist views: that American society is crumbling from within, that its social contract has been breached, that it faces ever-increasing poverty, etc. All of this may well be true, but is it all not a means for us to readily forget the decline of Europe itself?

  Whatever the case, the collapse of the USSR led the whole world to believe that the USA was actually the power that had emerged victorious (from the Cold War) and was thus meant to gain in importance. However, it is all but an illusion. Indeed, the USA is growing ever weaker in relation to the rest of the world, despite the mythological assertions that render it the world’s ‘unique superpower’ and which Europeans are alone to believe. American contribution to the global creation of wealth has decreased from 40 % in 1945 to a mere 25 % today.

  ***

  There are of course other entreating opinions espoused by the declinists: owing to its intense and clumsy imperialism, the USA is said to have reactivated the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis and awakened a resistant European political consciousness. The American military apparatus, conceived as the sole diplomatic solution, is thought to be overly expensive and the American economy is thus unable to withstand the weight of a gargantuan Defence budget. The victory that the USA has claimed in Iraq is bound to trigger inextricable strategic complications for the American global police.

  Nevertheless, our optimism concerning the American decline and the reawakening of a dynamical Euro-Russian power must not succumb to the Coué method, however likeable and well-intentioned it may be. We must not mistake our desires for reality. No matter how harmful it is for us to overestimate American power, it is even more detrimental to underestimate it while over-embellishing European and Russian capacities.

  As a result of their own ideological conformism, the ‘decadentists’ who, just like Todd himself, herald Europe’s final victory over its American rival, pay heed neither to our disastrous demographic situation, nor to the colonising immigration that Europe is being subjected to at the hands of the Third World, which embody the worst threats that we have ever faced in our long history. For what value could Western Europe and Russia ever have if they were robbed of their very substance? This inner anthropological collapse afflicting Europe is precisely what Washington is counting on.

  C. The Bush Doctrine’s Middle-Eastern Impasse

  Since 1945, the American approach to the Middle-East, a perfectly legitimate one for a major power to adopt, has been focused on securing its own oil supplies. The US geostrategic imperative has been rooted in ensuring the proper functioning of the Middle-Eastern service station, i.e. the plethoric provider of ‘Arabian light’ (the best oil of all), as well as in preventing other powers from depriving the USA of it.

  In order to achieve this, it was capital for the Americans to court the Arabs in a cynical manner, even those who were enthusiastic nationalists or those governed by tyrants and despots from long bygone ages. Hence Nasser’s CIA-funded coup in 1952, the brutal fashion in which the British-Israeli-French Suez intervention was terminated in 1956, and the massive financial aid given to the ‘Guardian of the Gulf’, Iranian Shah Pahlavi. This strategy was known as the ‘Eisenhower doctrine’ and had previously been elaborated by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. At the time, the USA was very careful not to support Israel, so as to avoid displeasing the medieval or ‘socialist’ potentates that governed the region. This support would only see the light of day after 1967 (the 6-day war) as a result of the pressure exerted by American Jewish lobbies.

  This initial pro-Arab strategy, however, turned out to be disastrous, as it was founded upon a flattering and benefit-based form of ‘anti-colonialism’ and ‘anti-Europeanism’ that was not reciprocated. In the name of a vague ‘Arab socialism’, the ungrateful Gamal Abdel Nasser turned towards the USSR instead, as did for example Algeria (a country ruled by Islamist-Marxist Boumedienne), thus completely disregarding the pro-FLN stance adopted by the State Department. The year of 1973 brought yet another shock: following the Kippur war, Saudi Arabia proceeded to quadruple its oil prices — leaving the Americans helpless and unable to do anything about it — and to exploit its newfound wealth to finance the revival of global Islamism and jihad.

  Trapped by its own desire to preserve its petrol station at all costs, the American foreign policy dodges, enmeshes itself and swallows one insult after another. It plays the slippery card of Islamism, turns a blind eye to the Saudi activism that funds the mujahideen everywhere, openly grants the latter its assistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan (since both the Taliban and Bin Laden were fed with the American manna), and remains idle-handed and without any vengeful intent whatsoever following the unpunished terrorist attack which took place in Beirut in 1982 and slaughtered 241 marines (even though the CIA was perfectly aware of the fact that the strike had been ordered by Iran and Syria and carried out by Hezbollah and the PLO, an organisation headed by slimy Yasser Arafat). Despite all this, the Eisenhower doctrine still prevailed — despotic monarchies and the various barbaric Muslim-Arab ‘republics’ still enjoyed blind American support in accordance with Dulles’ formula which says: ‘He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard’. All of this in order to achieve the supreme imperative: that of controlling the oil pump, thus securing the mandatory supplies, not the prices.

  It is obvious that this policy presupposed the presence of a major chasm (which became increasingly difficult to bridge) between the American support of Israel demanded by the
AIPAC (the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee founded in 1950, which, having traditionally been favourable to the Democrats, suddenly became pro-Republican once Bush was elected) and American petropolitics, i.e. the USA’s ‘petro-friendship’ with the Arabs. Befriending two mutual enemies is a difficult endeavour…

  ***

  Soon, three facts would render the Eisenhower doctrine untenable and trigger its implosion: the collapse of the USSR at the end of the Cold War, which kept the USA sheltered from the need to maintain the Muslim-Arabs in the Western camp at all costs; the 9/11 attacks, in addition to all the other anti-American jihadi acts that either preceded them or have followed since 1994; and the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war, exacerbated by the intransigent attitude adopted by the ‘Israeli lion’, Ariel Sharon.

  The neoconservative American administration then proceeds to change direction completely. It relinquishes diplomatic caution and replaces the latter with a military policy and unilateralism, all in the name of a protean war against ‘terrorism’, which now supersedes ‘communism’ in an extremely costly and risky strategy. The Afghan and Iraqi campaigns take place, serving as a prelude to the American desire to have Syria, Iran and Wahhabi Arabia toe the line, not to mention Lebanon. It is no longer a matter of negotiating, but an intention to impose oneself through force. Any and all contradictions are resolved from above in the hope of remodelling the Middle-East into a pro-American, multi-state protectorate (thanks to the benefits of ‘democracy’) that would neither threaten Israel nor impede the smooth functioning of the service station, using direct and heavy-handed military intimidation, brutal intervention and interference to achieve this.

  Numerous American analysts are sceptical about this imperialistic attempt at equilibristics, this ‘equilibristic imperialism’, if you will. Others, however, namely European Americanophiles, strongly believe in the geostrategic aptitude of the Texan cowboys, who remain completely ignorant of the mentalities that typify the ‘rest of the world’. Exemplifying such an attitude, Lauren Muraviec writes:

  One now speaks again of a free Lebanon [following the war in Iraq] instead of just pretending that all Middle-Eastern problems relate to the “Palestinian issue”, which embodies the dictatorial antiphon that allowed despots to conceal their exiguous governance and tyranny. The collapse of Saddam Hussein’s house of cards has highlighted the extent to which Middle-Eastern despotisms are but toothless tigers. (21st century war, Odile Jacob editions, 2000.)

  ***

  We must reject both obsessional anti-Americans and the gullible enthusiasts of the new American order. Overestimating the virtually inexistent capacities of the Iraqi defensive forces (who turned out to be mere pretend soldiers) and paying little attention to the despotic, criminal and pathetically incapable aspect of the tribal clique that surrounded Stalin’s small Arabian admirer, the former predicted the US army’s defeat. The latter, by contrast, have lulled themselves with illusions regarding the alleged efficacy of the ‘moral’ and unilateral strategy embraced by the New American Imperialism. Although the USA did claim a rapid military victory, its performance was, in fact, not much of a feat.

  In the medium term, it will be an entirely different matter. The above-mentioned ‘pro-Western and democratic remodelling’ of the Islamic Middle-East is bound to come up against insurmountable obstacles. The ‘Bush doctrine’ is even more reminiscent of an engine that is fuelled by sheer utopia than the now defunct ‘Eisenhower doctrine’ ever was.

  1) Despite the hyper-medialised Kurdish and Shiite coalescence towards ‘American liberation’, the USA has killed or maimed a large number of Iraqi civilians, a fact that will not be forgotten. The global anti-American hatred that has thus been aroused will certainly not abate, especially among those Middle-Eastern Muslim masses, regardless of their ‘liberation’. The protectorates whose humiliated public opinions abhor their own protectors are never viable ones.

  2) There is another fact that one rarely mentions: Afghanistan, whose pacification was a complete fiasco, is still in the throes of an ongoing war. In this chess game, the pawn that should have been the first to be taken is still standing.

  3) The American administration is utterly ignorant of both the Islamic nature and the Arab mentality, which are equally restive towards the Western kind of ‘democracy’, and underestimates the power of the anti-American global jihad that it has just awakened. It has triggered a ‘clash of civilisations’, even if it casts doubt upon the latter’s pertinence.

  4) The persistent civil war between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the American inability to put an end to it will prevent the birth of a stable protectorate in the Middle-East.

  5) In the medium term, the financial costs of a long-lasting regional takeover are unattainable for the USA and its limited economic means. Military operations against Syria and (a fortiori) Iran do not come into serious consideration, which is not only due to financial issues and the averse international reactions that this would kindle, but also to the fact that the US army is not in a position to vanquish any other military forces but those of small, depleted powers.

  ***

  The USA’s sole hope of transforming Arabia, Iran and Syria into protectorates and puppet governments lies in acts of bribery and corruption: the Americans would have to pay off local leaders to purchase their obedience. Account taken of the currently seething global context, however, such a solution will turn out to be absolutely impossible to apply.

  The USA is guilty of grossly overestimating itself. The new Bush doctrine is not only a fascinating imitation of British Victorian imperialism, i.e. the splendid Pax Britannica, but also a disorganised reproduction of the different forms of interventionism embraced by Napoleon, Bismarck, Hitler and even Stalin, who all longed to create buffer zones for themselves using plain and direct force.

  Unfortunately for Rambo and his mentally childish neoconservative advisors, who have rediscovered the imperialistic strategy espoused by the Europeans during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the latter no longer reflects the objective conditions of our planet in any way. Compared to the rest of the world, the USA does not embody the ‘crushing force’ that characterised Napoleonian France when the latter faced a European coalition (a confrontation that France lost in the end), nor is it in the same position it occupied in 1945, when it enjoyed a monopoly of military domination that other powers lacked.

  The American plagiarism of ancient European imperialism (which was once scorned) is doomed to fail. The callous unilateralism practiced by the Americans has encountered a hurdle — that of the objective power balance. Soon enough, the ever-growing Chinese and Indian giants will bring the USA back to reality. On a global scale, America’s relative economic weight keeps decreasing, not to mention the Russian defiance and an emerging Euro-Siberian project that is still in its infancy.

  Furthermore, when faced with Islam’s fanatical power, rapidly increasing demographics and jihad (a jihad that arouses admiration as a result of its archaism and furious desire to invade the world from below), the USA and its naïve, hymn-chanting Christians have failed to comprehend that their loophole strategy is inappropriate under the circumstances. Instead of targeting Islam with Western conversion, it would have been wiser to revert to the containment strategy that the Pentagon once implemented against Soviet communism. This is, by the way, the opinion that I advocate in this book, an opinion that is obviously founded upon the swift eradication of any Islamic presence on both American and European soil.

  ***

  Last but not least, Bush’s ‘new imperialist’ or ‘unilateralist’ doctrine is subject to the vicissitudes which stem from the versatility of the American public opinion, since the latter changes its convictions at the slightest setback. The current American administration is not eternal. The triumphalism pervading the minds of the neoconservatives, who are all high on the Iraqi campaign, may well evolve into a state of clinical depression at some point. New leaders embraci
ng isolationistic, minimalistic and pacifistic views may end up seizing control of Washington. Let us bear in mind the fact that the federal state is not really the guide of a nation, people or ‘empire’; its behaviour is rather that an international, political-military-industrial company (in which culture is but a mere industrial sector). It thus could, at any given moment, proceed to completely alter its strategy in a display of incredible flexibility.

  In the world of the 21st century, the USA will no longer be the main hyperpower. As I have already stated in Archeofuturism, America lacks the archaism and rootedness that the peoples of the Great Continent possess. The New World is doomed to remain peripheral forever, a mere Luna Park on its huge island. The USA is probably experiencing its zenith right now, or rather the end of it, as the last embers of its factitious power burn out. The Americans were admittedly the first to land on the moon, just like professor Calculus. They did in fact end up claiming dominion over the moon, but the Earth is a completely different matter…

  As for Europe, it is very ill indeed. Yet it remains Europe, because its soil speaks to it and it has its own underground and unconscious dimension. I am thus convinced that in less than 500 years’ time, one will still speak of the Europeans, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Jews, and Christians, but the world will have forgotten what the term ‘USA’ ever meant.

  D. The Right of Might

  All of those who felt scandalised and surprised to see the USA marginalising the UN and violating international law by attacking Iraq are utterly naïve. They all forget (especially the ones who constantly quote Carl Schmitt without having grasped his ideas) that de Gaulle himself once labelled the UN a ‘thingy’ and that the latter is founded upon a ridiculous sort of utopia: the notion of a Kantian international law, one which is both abstract and egalitarian and so disconnected from any concept of a power balance that, in the eyes of the Security Council, Guinea is just as important as India.