Guillaume Faye
A Global Coup
Arktos
London 2017
Copyright © 2017 by Arktos Media Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means (whether electronic or mechanical), including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United Kingdom.
ISBN
978-1-912079-82-7 (Paperback)
978-1-912079-81-0 (Hardback)
978-1-912079-80-3 (Ebook)
Translation
Roger Adwan
Editing
Martin Locker
Roger Adwan
Cover Design
Andreas Nilsson
Layout
Tor Westman
Follow us: Arktos.com | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Introduction
What follows is a summary of the views and arguments that I intend to develop in this book.
Since the disappearance of the USSR, the classic form of American imperialism has been replaced by a New American Imperialism (NAI). The latter is of a far more brutal, straightforward yet clumsier kind, because it overestimates its own power.
The campaigns that have taken place in Serbia, Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq have established the ever-increasing power of the NAI, whose initial formulation actually predates the 9/11 attacks. Ideologically, it is supported by the neoconservatives, who currently hold the reins of power and have formed an unprecedented and novel alliance that brings together rigourist Protestant milieus and Zionistic Jewish circles supportive of the Likud. Having said this, in no way do I consider myself to be an ‘anti-Zionist’, nor even a Zionist for that matter, since I do not take sides in causes that have no impact whatsoever on me.
What the NAI does is reinforce the USA’s self-proclaimed messianic legitimacy, which aims to impose Goodness upon the earth — i.e. its own political and social model — and combat Evil. Founded upon a bizarre ideology that merges Machiavellianism and Bismarckism with a theory advocating the USA’s moral predestination, the NAI’s strange patchwork associates a Schmittian doctrine of power (which serves as its law source) with an anti-Schmittian one that preaches the existence of a single, intrinsically authorised source of power (meaning the USA itself, in what has been labelled ‘unilateralism’). All this while simultaneously combining certain Kantian and Hegelian philosophical elements (which had hitherto been incompatible) with a few snippets of isolationism, unbridled interventionism and a neo-Keynesian, perhaps even neo-autarchic economic dirigisme, paired with the pursuit of an ultra-liberal and highly hypocritical global policy.
The NAI’s global, novel and original doctrine follows three central geostrategic axes: the principle of unequal bilateralism, the deficient sovereignty theory, and the concept of legal recession and declining international institutions.
First of all, according to the principle of unequal bilateralism, in no way does the USA strive to establish a ‘global government’. Instead, it takes heed of the fact that the world is now divided into two parts: on the one hand, there’s the USA, with its sphere of ‘new European’ vassals, meaning Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Spain and so on, while on the other, we have the so-called ‘Rest of the World’ (ROW). The USA is thus no longer the leader (or ‘conductor’) of the free world, but its actual ruler, i.e. the ‘police force’ that governs all other peoples and nations. It does not consider itself at all to be the principal Crusader of western civilisation, nor the first rock upon which a democratic, global and liberal state can be founded (in harmony with Carter’s doctrine). Instead, it thinks of itself as the sole superpower with the right to arrogate to itself the maintenance of planetary order in a manner that, above all else, serves its own interests, but automatically also those of the other nations which, to some extent, wallow in obscure ignorance. Europe is envisioned to be the empire’s ‘first realm’, in the same fashion that Rome looked upon its closest allies, the foederati.
The NAI thus rejects and dismisses Samuel Huntington’s views regarding a ‘clash of civilisations’, as well as the ideas defended by Francis Fukuyama with regard to the ‘end of history’ and the UN ‘s global government.
As a result of this, the doctrine of ‘deficient sovereignty’ postulates that the moment a certain state succumbs to ‘deficiency’ (meaning that it becomes part of the ‘axis of evil’), it is considered a rogue state, a ‘heinous state’ against which none but the USA has the duty to intervene and thus guarantee its own security and, on a secondary level, that of the surrounding world. The criteria that this ‘deficient sovereignty’ resorts to are of three kinds:
1) The presence of evidence or, in some cases, mere suspicion that one foments or supports ‘terrorist activity’.
2) The possession of weapons of mass destruction.
3) The presence of a political regime considered tyrannical, dangerous, etc.
No country is thus, theoretically speaking, immune from inclusion in this black list.
The third doctrine is that of legal recession and the decline of international institutions, meaning the UN, of course, but lately also NATO. The NAI’s ideologists have now taken heed of the fact that the United Nations is a rather useless organisation (a previously Gaullist acknowledgement) which cannot maintain peace and that international legality itself lacks the necessary efficiency. This deficient legality must therefore be superseded by a more efficient one — that of the United States.
The NAI thus draws its conceptual inspiration from every conceivable source: a bit of Metternich here (in memory of Kissinger, perhaps?), a little ‘restricted sovereignty’ inspired by ‘Brezhnev’s communist doctrine’ there, etc. Most of all, however, one notices a transition from an implicit and indirect form of imperialism to a different kind, one that is marked by explicitness and directness. What the NAI actually offers is an uninhibited kind of imperialism. The pangs of the Vietnam war have long been forgotten.
In terms of ambition, the NAI far surpasses traditional American imperialism, i.e. the same overly cautious imperialism which Nixon, for example, adhered to. Both its aims and its means are thus comparatively higher in number.
With regard to the NAI’s ambitions, the military campaign in Iraq has demonstrated that it is not merely a question of securing oil reserves, but also a matter of transforming Middle-Eastern Muslim countries into ‘democratic vassals’ and, above all, establishing a security belt around the Jewish state, a state that now finds itself in a desperate situation, even if it has not necessarily lost the fight yet thanks to the immemorial tenacity of the Jewish people. The NAI’s main objective, however, is to neutralise the potential birth of a European power stretching along a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a power that I have christened ‘Euro-Siberia’ and whose existence embodies a genuine nightmare for the American thalassocracy. There is, of course, a further objective — that of neutralising the increasing power of India and China. The NAI thus wages war on all fronts.
The NAI’s methods are global in character, and it resorts to all available means, including the strengthening of the Pentagon’s powers; the reinforcement of military-industrial facilities; a global control policy over all information networks; a strategy to weaken and dismantle the European Union that relies particularly on encouraging the massive Islamic presence on the latter’s soil (by advocating Turkish E.U membership, supporting the Muslims in the Balkans, calling for the establishment of a multiracial Europe, and so on); and the seduction of Central European states (which were previously under Soviet influence) in an attempt to turn the area into a protectorate. What should be noted is that the NAI has no intention wha
tsoever to combat Islam and the Third World. Its ambition is rather to exploit them both in its struggle against Europe and rob the latter of its identity.
The NAI also draws upon a hitherto unused method: that of direct interference in the domestic affairs of other countries without taking any diplomatic precautions, especially if these countries happen to be European ones. This is achieved through the issuing of ‘directives’, the official expression of wishes, and the use of explicit injunctions and threats, as witnessed recently in the case of the crude pressure exerted upon those enlarged future European institutions. Any protests are voiced so timidly that Washington only feels encouraged in this regard, for its vassals overestimate its power as much as it itself does.
Despite the enormous rhetorical intelligence that characterises its aims and means, the NAI has bitten off more than it can chew. Thanks to this novel imperialism, the USA has reached the apparent peak of its own power and is actually commencing its decline, having succumbed to both hubris and power intoxication. For the NAI is counterproductive: in the medium term, it will only bring about an increase in terrorism and exacerbate anti-American sentiments on a worldwide scale. The sheriff has gone insane and, unlike John Wayne in High Noon, will find himself unable to restore the Pax Americana. The Iraqi campaign has proven that in order to defeat a small and already bled-dry country, the world’s foremost superpower was forced to mobilise more than 50 % of its military means and ask its British auxiliaries for assistance, and yet was still unable to evade the quagmire of the post-war period. This constitutes a powerful signal: Iran, Pakistan and other middle powers have little to fear when faced with this toothless American tiger.
On the other hand, it is obvious that this American warmongering will incite many countries to acquire nuclear weapons as a precaution. Furthermore, the NAI pays neither heed to the frailty of the American economy, nor to the abysmal deficit of its commercial balance. In spite of its remarkable technological strength and labour power, the USA inhabits the sandcastle of a speculative economy, a ‘casino-like economy’ whose deficit was more than 500 billion dollars in 2003. This miracle will last as long as a rose in bloom: a mere morning.
Let us also bear in mind the ever-growing weakness of the American ground troops, increasingly forced to turn to Latin American foreign mercenaries; the numerical and demographic decline of the WASPs in the United States; the highly temporary aspect of the NAI that relies on the future electoral victories of the neoconservatives; the peacefully increasing power of the Chinese and Indian blocs, whether on the military level or from the industrial, technological, commercial and demographic perspective; the ancestral power of Islamic jihad, which now targets the USA (having initially burdened Europe); and so on.
In short, the new American dream of becoming the third thalassocratic Rome in the course of the 21st century has hardly any hope of coming true.
***
What is more, the ‘resistance’ to the NAI displayed by the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis lacks any sort of credibility at this time, regardless of how much of a ‘divine surprise’ it is to some people. The French and the Belgians partake in the preaching of the humanitarian, Kantian and legalistic ideology. In their opposition to the campaign in Iraq, the governments of both countries were far more motivated by their desire not to offend the enormous Muslim-Arab communities that they shelter than by any genuine European policy to resist the NAI. Inspired by the SPD’s favourite electoral topic, the Germans play the pacifist card. As for Russia, it is but a ruined castle compared to the USSR, and its real power (namely its military and economic potential) is not even a patch on China’s, a fact that the Americans are very well aware of.
Despite its immense weaknesses, the NAI could never be threatened by ‘a Europe of verbal policies and conference debates’, nor by a Europe that relies on the lyrical sermons given by the likes of Mr. Michel and Mr. Villepin. A genuine European superpower, including its Russian sibling of course, could only be founded upon actions, never sentiment, and be rooted in both practice and effort, not mere theory and criticism.
For it is absolutely useless for one to ‘criticise’ the NAI or ‘theorise’ about its wrongdoings if one does not endow themselves with specific technological, economic, cultural, demographic and other means to counteract its actions. In this respect, the above-mentioned European axis is something to pray for, a headline-grabbing global event that begs to be committed to action. History is, after all, comprised of a 99 % action rate, with words making up the remaining 1 %.
In parallel with this New American Imperialism, we have witnessed the development of what I, for reasons of convenience, have christened ‘Obsessive and Hysterical Anti-Americanism’ (OHAA), a development that has afflicted Europe, particularly France, and that I shall now criticise. OHAA concerns numerous milieus: it is found among Communists, Trotskyites, neo-Gaullists (who bear no connection to genuine Gaullism), progressive Christians, and, of course, Muslims, Islamophiles, those favourable to immigration and supportive of the Third World, pro-Palestinian individuals, etc.
OHAA reinforces the NAI: as a result of its own extremism and delirium, obsessive anti-Americanism provides American imperialism with the necessary justifications. The former is, in fact, probably financed or, at the very least, manipulated by American intelligence agencies, in whose interest it is to give anti-Americanism the image of an ideology embraced by dangerous madmen. In no way is the purpose of OHAA, even in its Right-wing elements, to defend our European identity. What it strives for, in truth, is the actual Islamisation and ‘Third-Worldisation’ of Europe, all in the name of a perverse sort of sophism that claims to detect a solidarity uniting Islam, the Third World and Europe against the Great American Satan and the Little Zionist Satan. In its dualistic and binary vision of the world, OHAA is incapable of thinking in ternary terms and of understanding that Europe has neither the duty to be reduced to an American protectorate nor the obligation to become another land of conquest claimed by the Muslim-Arab world. OHAA generates the impression that being anti-American means espousing Islamophilia, especially since the military campaign in Iraq.
Just like Islam and messianic American imperialism, OHAA resorts to demonisation, anathema, excommunication and invectives. Its attitudes belong to the sphere of passions, and its followers are highly reminiscent of the ‘anti-fascist’ European battalions that fell prey to Soviet manipulation during the 1930s and 1960s.
It is not merely certain American intelligence agencies that lie at the source of the manipulation that these impassioned minds and derealised, excited intellectuals have fallen victim to, but, in all likelihood, also some immigrationist and Islamophilic milieus. Indeed, by labelling the USA ‘the Great Satan’ and presenting the latter as a mortal threat, OHAA fulfils one of its main functions, namely that of lulling the masses into forgetting and/or accepting the ongoing immigrational colonisation and Islamisation of Europe. Yet again, the NAI and OHAA pursue the same goal in this respect, even if their schemes are different. They are thus to be objectively regarded as historic allies against Europe.
In harmony with my previous essays, I reaffirm my contention that the USA is Europe’s principal adversary, not its chief enemy. In doing so, I base my opinion on facts and not on intellectual reveries and speculation. Our chief enemy is embodied by the colonising masses whose identity the laws of our gradually occupied country ban me from specifying, as well as by our zealous indigenous collaborators.
The NAI has an irreducible number of adversaries within ‘White’ American nationalistic milieus, in whose view Washington had better concern itself with protecting the US-Mexican border against ethnic invasion and safeguarding the USA from the ravages of immigration rather than with playing cowboy in Mesopotamia. Pro-European in essence, they are far from being ‘Zionists’ or ‘anti-Zionists’ and believe the NAI to be defending a multiracial and policing (i.e. Orwellian) vision of the world. Last but not least, what they propose is a notion that I shall develop in the conclusi
on, at the end of this essay: that of a global and intercontinental union banding all peoples of European descent together.
Chapter I: The Ideology Behind the New American Imperialism
A. American Imperialism’s New, Hazardous Strategy
The word ‘imperialism’ is not to be taken pejoratively here, but rather understood from a descriptive angle.
The new American conception of war is that of an international police force governed by the USA and targeting all states characterised by a ‘deficient sovereignty’. The actual use of the term ‘war’ is completely banned. The new, neoconservative American administration thus attempts to unbalance the notion of national sovereignty as defined globally during the past two centuries.
Richard Haas, Director1 of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, is the man who first proposed the notion of ‘deficient sovereignty’ (in connection with international responsibility) to describe any regimes that:
1) support terrorist movements;
2) possess or attempt to produce nuclear, bacteriological or chemical weapons of mass destruction;
3) violate ‘human rights’.
If all three facts are confirmed, the states in question are thus stripped of the right to enjoy their sovereignty and become the potential targets of a legitimate attack at the hands of a ‘coalition’ headed by (none other than) the USA. These states are thus viewed as zones of lawlessness. The whole UN charter and its stipulations regarding both national sovereignty and the authorisation of military action solely in matters of legitimate defence is thus denied. From this perspective, every state is subject to preventive attacks the moment it is suspected (by the US, of course) of meeting the three sinful conditions listed above, as witnessed recently in Iraq.
Haas’ theory was inspired by the document entitled Strategy on National Security, published by the White House in October 2002. It is no longer a matter of entrenching, encircling and smothering dangerous countries (in accordance with McNamara’s containment theory), as was the case during the Cold War, but of attacking them pre-emptively in order to neutralise them. As might be expected, any threat to American interests is seen as the decisive criterion, since American interests are equated with those of the entire world...
A Global Coup Page 1