A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  I would obviously be happier if school children were introduced to the various native European tales and legends extending from the days of Antiquity. Should this never actually take place, it would, by any standards, be preferable to tell our children of the conquest of the American West, the adventures of Davy Crockett among the Indians, and the friendship of Tom Jeffords and Cochise, rather than to overwhelm them, deracinate them and burden them with guilt by introducing them to Third World popular cultures, especially those of Black Africa and the Arab world. Why? Because lurking behind the pseudo-imperative of ‘familiarising our children with other cultures’, one finds a tenacious desire to inferiorise European and White cultures to the benefit of the peoples that inhabit the South.

  By exaggerating the Americanisation afflicting our European societies and granting it delirious proportions, OHAA allows people to forget, obliterate and turn a blind eye not only to our continent’s rampant Third-Worldisation and Islamisation, but also to interbreeding. ‘Goodness Gracious! A MacDonald’s has just opened in the Beaucaire or Tarascon area! We must mobilise immediately! Our heritage is being disfigured!’ What they all seem to be forgetting is that these two ancient communes, located in Occitania, are becoming increasingly similar to North African villages.

  The insurmountable contradiction pervading OHAA lies in its claim that, while welcoming Europe’s Arabisation and Islamisation in the face of our continent’s Americanisation and its submission to the Jewish chokehold, it simultaneously denounces the latter as being the main causes behind the Arabisation, Islamisation and Third-Worldisation afflicting Europe! On the one hand, they assert that our Arabisation and Islamisation are favourable developments that protect us against those Zionistic and American monsters, but on the other, they state that our disastrous Arabisation and Islamisation is a tragedy orchestrated by those cunning Judeo-Americans. So which is it ?

  ***

  Is it the USA or Europe that is responsible for our immigration issues? OHAA has a completely demobilising effect and absolves us from any responsibility: we are not accountable for anything and it is America that, globally speaking, is the real culprit. We are thus mere victims, meaning utterly powerless. As stated by Alain Laurent:

  Anti-Americanism is essentially a full-scale ideological passion that has now turned into pathological obsession. Whatever they do or fail to do, and regardless of whether they are isolationists or interventionists, it is the Americans who are always in the wrong, remaining ever guilty and monstrous. They have thus become a globalised scapegoat upon which one can heinously project any and all responsibility for one’s own failures and frustrated resentment; America is the “Great Satan” and the target of ritualistic public execration. (Les 4 Vérités weekly, 22/03/2003.)

  OHAA relies on Europe’s mental Third-Worldisation: just as Africans are presented by these anti-American hysterics as the unfortunate and blameless victims of horrendous ‘neo-colonialism’ (which, as demonstrated by Bernard Lugan, is but a figment of people’s imagination), so are Europeans depicted as the innocent victims of the diabolical ‘Uncle Sam’, the almighty and Machiavellian ‘Yankee’.

  Nowadays, this mental disorder prospers among an entire population of proletarian intellectuals who hold a fascination for Islam and its ‘Tradition’. Unable to find their own European roots, they thus seek out the antidotes to Americanism elsewhere.

  ***

  The radical opposition between the US and Europe is considered irreconcilable, global, absolute and final, while Islam and the entire Third World are unrealistically displayed as our continent’s friends, when, in actual fact, this Muslim-Arab civilisation has, ever since the 8th century, never ceased to clash with ours. Our conflicts have always been sanguinary; its worldview, mentalities and way of life are utterly incompatible with ours, all the way to the most intimate details; and it has initiated its third major historical offensive against Europe by means of the current colonisation effort known as ‘immigration’. The French intellectuals who preached of a Soviet-Stalinist paradise back in the 1950s immediately spring to mind. Reality is of no interest to them; the only thing that holds their attention is fanaticised ideology and an imprecatory line of thought based on slogans, insults, condemnations and anathemas.

  ***

  In my view, Europeans will, depending on the circumstances, be able to form temporary alliances with their adversary and rival, namely their American prodigal son. However, the distance and structural divergences that separate us from the Muslim-Arab world are too ancient and too profound for us to even ponder the slightest cordial agreement. Our balance of power and extremely distrustful relationship is bound to be permanent. Islam’s ever stronger presence on European soil acts as the counterpoint to the American strategic and cultural chokehold, yet turns out to be far graver.

  Due to their relative civilisational proximity and their common ethnic basis, the opposition between the USA and Europe could never, in fact, take on the shape of definitive estrangement. One would have to be narrowly dogmatic and lack any and all common sense to deny this fact. American and European economic and cultural interests are highly divergent as a result of the Atlantic barrier’s geopolitical impact, as this ocean embodies, according to Mary Kaldor’s analyses, a border rather than a point of contact. However, European and Muslim-Arab interests are even more divergent than that. In this regard, I have always been critical of any notion of Occident, preferring to counter it with that of Europe and, more recently, that of Euro-Siberia (i.e. the ethno-geographical union of Europe and Russia). The USA has been waging an economic and cultural war against us, which is all too logical from a historical perspective. All that is left for us to do is resist it and retaliate, an attitude that Europeans have often been capable of.

  A word of clarification: any criticism targeting the USA, the NAI, globalism and ultra-liberalism can only be taken seriously if it originates from the bold milieus which display equal courage in braving the principal danger that threatens Europe, namely massive ethno-cultural submersion.

  E. The Great Satan

  OHAA feeds on the (incidentally very biblical and highly American) idea that the USA embraces a satanic sort of international behaviour; that, ever since Hiroshima, its war crimes have equalled Stalin’s; that its ‘democracy’ is but a plutocratic sort of totalitarianism which, although softer, is comparable to Saddam Hussein’s late regime; and that the mass subculture that the Americans have been flooding the world with mirrors George Orwell’s descriptions in 1984. On the basis of these alleged historical facts, one thus proceeds to ‘satanise’ America, even if it is equally possible to demonise any other country or civilisation.

  ***

  In order to demonise the USA, OHAA makes use of the cheap argument surrounding the genocide of American Indians and Black slavery, as if the practice of genocide were specific to the American republic. What about the Spanish genocidal actions against Native Americans? Or the Armenian genocide? Or the ‘blood belt’ that has surrounded the Muslim expansion ever since the birth of Islam? Or the slavery which has been practiced in Africa and the Middle-East for a thousand years? I could go on and on. Genocidal acts are consubstantial with human history. By the way, the ‘genocide’ of American Indians (which has largely been blown out of proportions) was conducted by European immigrants as part of a certain conquest phase and beyond any specifically American ideology. In the process, one omits to mention that Indian tribes resorted to abominable acts of retaliation and that the allegedly ‘great Native American civilisation’ was often akin to sheer barbarism. The discourse which turns American Indians into victims is reminiscent of the statements made in connection to Black slavery, during which one selectively avoids identifying those truly responsible.

  Do all those complaints made by OHAA supporters regarding the ‘genocide of American Indians’ not embody yet another means of burdening Whites with guilt and equating them to natural-born torturers? In no way is OHAA’s purpose, therefore, to defend a Europe
an power against American Imperialism; in accordance with a highly skilful Trotskyite ambition, its actual aim is to deify all so-called coloured peoples and depict them as the victims of all those who are of European descent. What I should also specify at this stage is that there are many ‘liberal’ intellectuals in the US who act as willing accomplices in this ethno-masochistic disinformation campaign.

  ***

  Despite its repetitive bombardments and relentless militarism, the USA has not displayed an overly murderous attitude compared to other world powers during the past 3000 years. It is thus simpleminded, senseless and counterproductive for anyone to found their anti-Americanism on an exclusively moralistic accusation that might easily backfire against those who utter it, regardless of whether they are of European, Arabian, Chinese, Russian, African or any other origin. It is likewise wrong, counterproductive and absolutely unreasonable to root one’s anti-Americanism in the alleged ‘domestic totalitarianism’ of American society. Such convictions are mere intellectualistic daydreams and pure anti-sociology. Americanolatrists such as Guy Sorman and Jean-François Revel truly soar and revel7 in such blunders and excesses. The same applies to all those who accuse the USA of ‘cultural debility’, basing their claims on all those American TV series and talk shows, as well as on the cultural industry that America exports, which, admittedly, tends to lack quality (even if this is not always the case). But is there anything that prevents Europeans from outdoing their American rival? Do the popcorn munchers that attend baseball games define America? Is their intellectual level inferior to that of those superstitious and hysterical masses that embrace certain well-known religions?

  ***

  OHAA stigmatises the US with enormous, satanic flaws, meaning that it deifies America. Unequalled in their debility, corruption and destructiveness, Americans are thus always the masters and it is we who are all pitiful victims that cannot be held accountable for anything. One thus wallows in the position of ‘intelligent slaves’. It is very difficult for those afflicted with OHAA to admit that people are unfortunately more attached to their European civilisational roots overseas than in Europe itself. There is nothing pleasant about this confession, yet it remains the truth. What those anti-Americans fail to explain is why our European ‘high culture’ and legacy enjoy more support in overseas universities than within our French national education system.

  The fact of depicting the Americans as being ‘barbaric’ by means of numerous incontestable facts and examples does not relate to historical or sociological objectivity, but to political or ideological passion. Due to the specifics, one loses sight of the overall picture. OHAA acts as a machine that leaves Europe homeless.

  Whenever American bombs result in the deaths of Iraqi civilians or Tsahal8 kill Palestinians, it all reflects the eternal law of war. I only speak out against American bombardments when they are directed against Europe, as was the case in Serbia. Those who defend Iraq are reminiscent of those who defended the Vietcong back in the 1960s. Why do they meddle in such things? The supporters of OHAA are not even driven by moral motivations, because if that were the case, they would also campaign against the violence perpetrated by the Chinese in Tibet or the countless killings witnessed in the ‘blood belt’ that spreads from Nigeria to Indonesia, surrounding the Islamic domain.

  ***

  The American world power is hardly impressed by this sort of anti-Americanism, which, quite to the contrary, only serves to reinforce its own moralising arguments. The calls for murder and terrorist attacks uttered by irresponsible intellectualists who are fascinated by Bin Laden are a genuine boon for American propaganda. The latter can thus present anti-Americanism as an attitude reserved for psychopaths and extremists (as was the case during the desecration of military cemeteries). It would not come as a surprise to anyone if the desecrators of Anglo-Saxon graves (in Étaples, for instance) and those who print hateful and infantile anti-American ‘communiqués’ were given discreet support and ‘encouragement’ or simply manipulated by specialised American secret services (attention-seeking and frustrated people tend to be the ideal puppets).

  Another source of OHAA, especially in the extreme Right spectrum, lies in the vital need of a whole nebula of overexcited and sectarian units to be noticed (without great risk) by a System that practices a policy of silence and implements a complete blackout on all such activities. The headlong rush that leads to delirious anti-American imprecations is but a select means to ensure that people ‘talk about’ them. But how does one come across as being ‘tough’ without actually incurring any risk? By embracing OHAA, of course.

  ***

  American neoconservative ideologists, Islamists and those who have surrendered to OHAA all abide by the same line of thought, one that was previously followed by communists: Manicheanism, meaning the embracement of a black-or-white worldview. The NAI identifies the Axis of Evil as its absolute enemy (instead of the former ‘Empire of Evil’), whereas Islamists consider the Great Satan to be their foe, as do all their intellectualistic European friends. We thus have the pure and victimised on one side and the scoundrels on the other.

  There is, however, a compensation phenomenon within the anti-Americanism adopted by those intellectuals who have been harassed, demonised through accusations of ‘Fascism’ and driven mad by this unfair ostracism, a phenomenon whose essence is almost psychoanalytical in nature. They thus feel compelled to identify a ‘Fascism’ of their own, an absolute ‘Evil’ that lies at the source of all ailments, so as to divert against others the opprobrium that they themselves have been subjected to. They could have obviously targeted Islam (as a kind of ‘green Fascism’), which would not be a difficult endeavour when one examines its history, current practices, ideology and ‘sacred’ texts.

  Yes, but the catch is that such a position would not be fashionable at this time, since this conquering Islam is looked upon favourably by the System. To attack the Muslim religion would be synonymous with sinking deep into the quicksand of ‘racism’, a suspicion that weighs heavily upon the shoulders of the unfortunate folk belonging to the neo-Leftist Parisian intelligentsia, despite the latter’s constant and desperate efforts and its declarations of love towards the Third World. What is the solution, then? New Fascism must be embodied by America, namely White America, with its insolent, militaristic and selfish WASPs, considered the source of all earthly ailments. Our intellectuals thus define themselves as avengers, Don Quixotes, and the protectors of ‘oppressed peoples’ against the imperialistic hydra. 35 years have passed since the May ’68 events, and yet nothing has changed.

  ***

  There is a common factor that brings OHAA, the NIA and Islamists together: a binary worldview, including an Absolute, immutable and inhuman enemy that exists outside the boundaries of history. This foe’s identity may be changeable, but the logic remains intact and monotheistic. In a faithful imitation of Soviet propaganda and Khomeinist understanding, one thus considers the USA to be a sort of demonic Superman, wallowing in the humiliation that one suffers at the hands of this satanic America and never, of course, proposing any power policy to counter the latter. Such anathema-ridden (or rather fatwa-esque) thinking seldom offers any arguments: it remains vague, emotional and general, resorting to simpleminded images and formulas (‘Down with MacDonald’s!’, ‘Long live the oppressed Indians!’, ‘Death to Jeans and Rock music!’, etc.). This logic displays a preference for slogans over analyses and disregards the real symptoms and causes of American dominance, namely our brain drain, bureaucracy, the rejection of any research or defence effort, and so on.

  Rather than demonise the USA from an emotional perspective, one had better champion reason and thus remedy the real cause behind American hegemonic insolence: our European weakness. When faced with a void, America only reacts the way any other power would: it simply fills it. If I were a member of Bush’s neoconservative team, I would rejoice at the shape that European anti-Americanism has now taken, for it is vindictive, moral, accusatory, inte
llectual, impassioned and extremist. What Washington dreads most is non-Americanism and specific manifestations of power and independence on the part of European countries.

  ***

  Beyond this desert-like analytical aridity, one reencounters the old mental dispositions that typify the French intellectual petty bourgeoisie and which the extreme Left has embraced as its own: resentment and anathema. There is nothing worse than the inability to hierarchise and the need to paint everyone with the same brush. Depicting the American culture as a sheer abomination and the peak of abjection, as initially done by de Montherlant (and subsequently by other less gifted authors), is the perfect example of an argument which, as a result of its own excesses and hysteria, simply destroys itself. In order to actually combat American mass culture, it is preferable to target it with a critique that is cold, argument-based, hate-free and devoid of ridiculous superlative statements, just like Walter Benjamin or Christopher Lash did back in the day. Unfortunately, critical analysis has been replaced by almost theological condemnations.