A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  Whatever the case, one of the NAI’s positive aspects may turn out to be its ability to cure us of our assistantship mania towards the Third World as a whole, and Africa in particular. Unlike Europeans, who are always burdened with their own feelings of guilt, American governments do not consider themselves to be Africa’s nurses or its Ladies of Charity. The American mentality is inclined to believe that those incapable are responsible for their own incapacity and that the best means to help them actually lies in not aiding them at all, so as to force them to face themselves and their own responsibilities.

  ***

  What difference does it make to Europeans if the Pentagon bombards Baghdad and Tel-Aviv pounds the Palestinians? It is all part of the age-old game of power policies. What does the destiny of Near-Eastern Muslim-Arabs have to do with Europe? Have the latter ever defended the European identity? On the contrary, what they are doing is encouraging our continent’s colonisation through jihad.

  The gullible apostles who preach a ‘pro-Arab European policy’ and the necessity to grant Palestinians massive aid are unable to comprehend the fact that this will not benefit us in any way, nor will it bestow any dividends upon us. This attitude relates to pure anti-politics, which is always rooted in charitable altruism.

  D. Towards a ‘Disorderly, Multipolar World’

  Believing it possible for international relations to remain peaceful on a long-term basis is a sign of utopianism and of a blatant contempt for History itself; especially in the context of a ‘full planet’, a situation that we are all well aware of and in which plethoric peoples rub against each other. We are thus beginning to witness the paradox in which different civilisations are fighting each other against the common backdrop of a single global techno-economic infrastructure.

  It was already impossible for China, India, the Muslim world etc. to play a highly active role during World War I and II, since they were still part of ‘another world’, namely a pre-industrial one. This is, however, no longer the case today: various civilisations are now rubbing shoulders, forming enormous blocs of different morals, beliefs, races and traditions, at a time when a certain material civilisational infrastructure (the fruit of Western techno-science) has been established and is now shared by all of mankind. This constitutes an explosive cocktail: the concomitant homogenisation of heterogeneity. Everyone shares the same playground, although their interests are becoming ever more divergent.

  ***

  There are four possible developments in this regard:

  1) A pacifistic multipolar world where all peoples and powers cooperate with one another within the UN’s harmonious framework and in which migratory movements, the Islamic expansion and the ambitions to secure scarce resources are wisely managed through mutual agreement. In this world, any and all imperialism will have disappeared thanks to the enchantment of wisdom. Such a world embodies the Kantian utopianism embraced by the French, German and Belgian foreign policies. The hopes of ever establishing it total 0 %.

  2) The development centred around the traditional form of American imperialism, one that was, until recently, advocated by Washington: it is founded upon ‘the sharing of power’ and involves a gentle sort of American hegemony that resorts to cunning rather than brute force. This Machiavellian solution (that of the fox rather than the lion), previously the most skilful and profitable option from the American perspective, has gradually been relinquished since the fall of the USSR and the 9/11 2001 attacks. All the better for us: this approach was the most dangerous one for Europe, since its numbing effect is unequalled in strength.

  3) The NAI’s prevalence, meaning that of a unipolar world subject to America’s policing authority, with the US representing the sole source of international law. In the very short run (10 years), the chances of such a world coming to pass total 50 %. In the medium term, this rate decreases to 20 % and, beyond that, to 0 %.

  4) The prospect of a disorderly, multipolar world seems most likely, not only because it is already taking shape, but also because it reflects all the historical observations made during the past centuries with regard to international relations.

  The dream of a Pax Romana was more or less accomplished during a century and a half, stretching from the initial establishment of the Empire to the very first Barbarian invasions into the limes. Times have greatly changed, however: the idea of implementing a Pax Americana upon our current planet (a bubbling cauldron where, soon enough, 10 billion people will flock together) by maintaining some sort of ‘order’ through armed threats and technological superiority may be possible from a theoretical angle, but will turn out to be nonsense on a practical level. This is why, as I myself have outlined in my previous work entitled Avant-Guerre, we must brace ourselves for the imminent emergence of a period characterised by immense, chronic clashes which the NAI will certainly find itself unable to control; it will, instead, only manage to foment them.

  Indeed, once the sheriff realises that he is unable to maintain order in this ‘global village’ as a result of his own lack of means and the fact that his callous methods have only served to increase the motivations driving the various thugs and rebels, his actions will trigger a chain of international crises, as well as a global rearmament policy. And it is only in this general atmosphere of disputes and tragedies that History will give birth to a new European civilisation.

  E. Against Anti-American Moralism

  Beyond the incredible stupidity pervading the unilateral war waged against Iraq by the Bush administration under the deceitful pretence of an international coalition (in the long run, this war’s consequences are bound to be the opposite of its intended purpose, as admitted even in a report published by the US army’s war college on January the 13th 2004), one should refrain from judging the USA from a ‘moral’ point of view, one that is founded upon the self-righteousness of preventing all violations against human rights and international law. And it is indeed very bizarre to witness many intellectuals who have previously praised jurist and political scientist Carl Schmitt, a theoretician who championed power as a source of right, display utter ignorance of his ideas and condemn the American ‘aggression’ in the name of utopian and universalistic arguments that can only be described as Kantian, thus aligning themselves, once again, with the Left’s formulas, female pacifism, the dream of a spontaneously recognised globalist legality and the negation of all power relations and their historic legitimacy. The anti-Americanism that they succumb to is thus no longer European and Identitarian, but Leftist, a faithful copy of the American campuses that once opposed the war in Vietnam.

  ***

  International legality is always defined in accordance with the will of the most powerful. The USA is absolutely right to change its standpoint and adopt this realistic philosophy. Ethically speaking, one cannot reproach the Americans anything either, since ethics are inapplicable in the geopolitical field. One could of course mock their neophyte ardour in matters of Machiavellianism, rejoicing at their clumsiness and the fact that they overestimate their own power in a bout of hubris which robs them of all awareness. The only essential thing is for the Europeans and Russians to claim, in turn, the position of the most powerful ones, so as to define their own international legality. It is high time we stopped looking at international politics and polemology from an egalitarian point of view and in accordance with morals that are becoming of convent nuns.

  Unfortunately, the pacifistic position espoused by France and Germany with regard to the American military campaign bears no relevance to a ’grand European policy’, nor does it reflect a desire to resist the US; it only relates to the necessity to avoid offending the Muslim-Arab world, whose populations are pouring down upon our continent. Europe has thus entered what geopolitician Louis Sorel has termed ‘the era of emptiness’, meaning that of renouncing any claim to power. Believing Europe to be oblivious to its ‘civilisational identity’ and to have renounced power in the name of moralistic utopianism, he writes:

  What power designates
is the ability to act forcefully in order to impose one’s will. Power is both material and measurable (“How many divisions”?); it is a dynamic that relates to vital momentum, lying at the very heart of politics […]. In his Power and Weakness, neoconservative political scientist Robert Kagan develops the theory according to which Europe’s ambition is to establish a “post-historical paradise” that lies beyond the notion of power. By attempting to actually give birth to Kant’s “project for eternal peace”, the Europeans seem to be condemning themselves to political inexistence in the strong sense of the word. (The Audacity of Power, Les Quatres Vérités Hebdo, 29/03/2003.)

  Quoting Carl Schmitt (‘Should a people cease to be politically active, this would not lead to a decrease in politics, but to the world being one people short’), he criticises the irenicism and naivety pervading the new world order advocated by Chirac’s France. Founded upon ethereal ethics and powerless living-room diplomacy, the latter keeps itself in balance by leaning against the UN ‘thingy’ and using the globalist delusion of an ‘international community’ as a prop:

  It is in accordance with these eternal truths that the words uttered by Dominique de Villepin, the self-proclaimed spokesman for both Europe and mankind, are to be assessed. The fact that he concluded his UN speech with a reference to “the construction of a better world” testifies to his mental confusion. The realm of politics bears no connection to eschatology and such means-end discourse is thus, accordingly, tarnished with illegitimacy. […] There can never be any common European destiny beyond space, time and power.

  ***

  The issue with the new American global policy is that it has, at long last, assimilated a sound and historically accurate philosophical principle, but has, for the past decade or so, been implementing the latter with grotesque clumsiness. Genuine Europeans should be rejoicing at this, under the condition, of course, that they finally manage to comprehend the fact that countering their American rival and competitor will remain impossible in the absence of military, economic, financial and cultural power and without demographic dynamism. Within both the national and international political arena, words have no value whatsoever as long as they lack the necessary ability and actions.

  F. Atlanticism, or the Whore Syndrome

  The American desire to eliminate Europe from the global power game is one of the NAI ‘s central characteristics. In the past, it was only a matter of dominating our continent, but now, all means have become acceptable, even those that are founded on commercial illegality, the disrespect of treaties, and the bribing of decision-makers so as to push Europe, America’s main rival, completely out of the game. This applies to all fields, as the US strives to sabotage Europe’s autonomous military industry and its spatial capacities, while undermining the EU’s agricultural policy, imposing American GMOs, etc. The list is a very long one.

  However, this strategy, one which no longer attempts to merely weaken Europe, but embodies an effort to emasculate our continent, is only made possible by the complicity of European politicians and that of the authorities in the Brussels Commission. The USA is playing its game and counting on the corrupt blindness and stupidity that typify the European atlanticist camp, including Alain Madelin and José Maria Aznar, not to mention proconsul Blair. But why speak of stupidity? Because European atlanticists are the only ones to have swallowed whole the fictitious claims regarding a Euro-American ‘Atlantic solidarity’. And yet, a single argument would suffice to discredit the Atlanticism advocated by those Americanolatrists: not a single American administration, whether Democratic or Republican, has ever believed in such fables, which is truer now than ever before. The White House has always been convinced of the existence of a divergence (or a rupture, even) between American and European economic and geostrategic interests. The atlanticist ideology is but a means for the USA to mislead Europeans into believing that there could actually be a common transatlantic interest and thus conceal the presence of unequal treaties, rigged commercial partnerships and a global strategic dependence beneath the veneer of fictional equality.

  Is it not, for instance, an enormous blunder for Europeans to have displayed such stupidity that they placed EU diplomacy into the hands of former NATO secretary general Javier Solana? Doing so is synonymous with placing it under Washington’s tutelage. Faced with this callous and cynical domination, Europeans kneel in submission, overestimating America’s power to retaliate and inflict punishment. Despite his rebellion, de Gaulle never had any reason to fear the USA at all, but American propaganda has managed to present anti-Americanism as a disease requiring treatment, especially when it happens to be French. Such is the view espoused by America’s own agent of influence, Jean-François Revel. Europeans are thus expected to acknowledge their own weakness (for their own mental sake), as well as the fact that it would be suicidal for Europe to reclaim its former power, right?

  The atlanticist camp is but a collaborationist party, just like the Islamolatrists. There is a certain kinship between Atlanticism and OHAA: instead of considering the US to be a power like any other, both camps see it as a sort of metaphysical superpower, one that represents all that is Good on Earth for some, while simultaneously embodying all that is Evil for others. No one looks upon America from outside the realms of passion, beyond any Absolute notions; they all thus fail to see it as a nation that could, at any given moment, lose its ally status and become an adversary, or the other way around.

  Atlanticists have adopted the same behaviour towards the USA as a demimondaine — or a whore — would towards her ‘protector’, who views his ‘protégée’ as a luxurious prostitute, while she persuades herself that he is her actual spouse and that they represent a united and egalitarian couple.

  Chapter XI: ‘Septentrion’, or the End of the American Dream

  A. America Is Not Immutable

  One must not believe America to be immutable, as those obsessed with anti-Americanism do. On the contrary, this comet-like nation may well be experiencing a complete metamorphosis affecting its innermost nature. In this regard, the NAI could be considered the ultimate expression of Americanism, the final blossoming of the American rose. America’s accelerating Hispanicisation will result in turmoil that one can scarcely imagine. The days of America’s Manifest Destiny, a uniquely puritan characteristic and the very foundation of US imperialism, may well be numbered. The same goes for the American patriotic attitude surrounding the US flag (with its Stars and Stripes), a patriotism that is growing ever weaker and is in dire need of shocks — such as the one caused by the 9/11 attacks — in order to be resurrected. Can one truly be certain of the fact that a part of America’s White public opinion will not end up experiencing an increasing feeling of solidarity towards Europe and Russia?

  ***

  In the end, History is the one that allows events to unfold and evades any and all human predictions. No one could ever foresee what it has in store for us. In spite of the civilisational rupture between the USA and the Euro-Siberian continent, and regardless of the constant anti-European policies implemented by the various American administrations, there is an undeniable basic fact, an unavoidable ethnic reality that historical developments could drag into their unforeseeable currents.

  This fact is the following one: even though European and North American populations comprise an ever-growing percentage of ‘coloured’ minorities, the common anthropological stem uniting Europe and North America (in addition to Argentina, Australia, etc.) is still that of the White race; this Europoid compost of Germanic, Latin, Slavic and other Caucasoid populations is endowed with a common atavistic mentality and predisposition.

  This bio-anthropological kinship is obvious and thus creates an opposition between the European ethno-civilisation (including its global extensions) and all other ones. Hence the novel conception that I am now proposing, one that completes the notion of Euro-Siberia: Septentrion.

  ***

  The war waged by the Bush clan is but an epiphenomenon th
at only those intellectuals who lack any vision of the future and all historical intuition focus on (through the small end of their spy glass). The act of confusing the North American ethno-biological germen with the corrupt administration and financial forces that govern the USA is a sign of utter ignorance regarding the long-term developments and underlying movements that guide different peoples. One thus stupidly neglects both our world’s ethnic dimension and its profound cultural connivances, reasoning as if White Americans were complete strangers to us and we had closer bonds to the Iraqis or the Algerians than to Iowan farmers or Texan entrepreneurs.

  ‘Francophony’ is prone to maintaining the very same delusion: even if they do speak French, there are numerous African or Maghrebian peoples that do not form a single civilisational unit with ours at all, and this mental chasm can never be bridged. The simultaneously abstract and moralising fabrication of a complicity between Europe and the Third World (a fabrication that reflects its purely Evangelic origin, with Chirac acting as its self-declared herald) does not correspond in any way to Europe’s interests and actually represents the greatest threat to our continent’s identity. As for the view that Europe must rely on the Third World, and especially the Muslim world, in its struggle against the Great Yankee Satan (as is fashionable to believe in numerous delirious intellectual circles), it relates to sheer political oneirism.

  ***

  The American government will not endure in its current shape forever, and the neoconservatives will not remain in power indefinitely. Islam, on the other hand, will never change in any way, and neither will the Third World and the South, displaying a common will to occupy our lands both physically and demographically. Is the USA driven by such a will too?