***
Chalmel also believes that the violence and arrogance characterising the ultra-religious neoconservatives actually embody the first convulsions and initial symptoms that accompany the waning of the US as we know it. His conviction is that ‘the 21st century will not be an American century, or at least not that of WASP America’. The American economy’s growing dependence on the rest of the world heralds the end of the latter’s submission to the US. This pronounced tendency will only be accentuated. ‘This dependency upon the world shall inevitably drive the US towards implementing a predation policy’. Hence America’s ‘hijacking’ of Iraqi oil and its rejection of the Kyoto ecological protocol, etc., in an effort to maintain a domestic consumption frenzy.
However, America’s ethnic composition is undergoing rapid changes, especially through the growth of the Latino immigrant population. The decline of WASP America may well end up upsetting the USA’s global policy. As a result of the new Hispanic arrivals, America is experiencing a communitarianisation process, as the White demographic backflow picks up pace. This growing Latino community does not share Protestant America’s messianic worldview at all. Territorial partitions are thus not to be excluded. Whatever the case, ‘the tensing of the “White overclass”’ is said to be a response to the horrible dangers threatening traditional America. The wishes expressed by Paul Wolfowitz (the former US Deputy Secretary of Defence and a neoconservative imperialistic ideologist), S. Huntington, and Zbigniew Brzezinski regarding both their refusal to acknowledge any other 21st century power than the USA and the American implementation of total hegemony may well remain unfulfilled, as America displays absolute tolerance towards immigrant invasion. And this is how the author develops his analysis: once it has experienced a geopolitical offset, the USA may drop out of the game. Not only is its legitimation of bestowing happiness upon the world through liberal democracy not to be taken seriously, but it also fails to protect America against the emergence of rival powers, especially when considering the fact that American imperialism tends to arouse nationalistic and Identitarian reflexes on a virtually global scale.
The interesting side to the author’s views lies in his extreme caution not to surrender to OHAA and the manner in which he actually advocates a consistent kind of non-Americanism. His view is that a European power (whose future existence he advocates, just as I do) will have much better relations with a New America that shall no longer be ‘WASP’ in nature, an America that will ultimately be either South-Americanised, or shattered. This theory is an appealing one, yet it does build castles in the air. Is a ‘decreasingly White’ America truly something desirable for us Europeans, who are faced with an even worse and more tragic demographic metamorphosis? If there is indeed an answer to this question, I, for one, do not know it.
***
There are numerous ideological groupings that exist in a sort of hermetically sealed mental bubble (as seen in the case of the Trotskyites, Atlanticists, sects, etc.) in which all free thought is impracticable, every deviance prohibited and any discussion banned, since analysis is no longer the result of autonomous individual reflection, but a road map devised by a certain doctrine or guru. The followers are thus under the latter’s influence and interpret everything through a certain grid, one that is always binary and thus renders any and all debate impossible: the USA, major investors, the Market, etc. are all simply demonic in essence — period.
One thus proceeds by means of affirmations and not on the basis of demonstrations. Factual or historical experience is of no importance: ‘Islam and the Muslim-Arab world are Europe’s allies and do not pose any threat. The Palestinians are eternal victims. The Third World is the martyr of neo-colonialism. The Yankees are bastards’, and so on. The opposing camp behaves similarly: ‘The USA is the embodiment of innocence and the very pillar of our world’s democratisation; a European world power is sheer utopia’; etc. Neither side sees the world for what it is. Demonising others is our French intellectuals’ daily bread, especially in the case of those who claim to struggle against such behaviour. They rage, are indignant and denounce things in a most impassioned fashion, but do not ponder anything and rarely seek out the necessary information. Their observational capacity and ability to predict a likely future (meaning their common sense) are virtually inexistent, to such an extent that they draw counter-diagnostic conclusions worthy of mad doctors, just like the dominant vulgate, an expert at producing heaps of such nonsense: ‘Immigration is an opportunity for France, the advent of Islam is an enrichment’, and so on.
***
Regardless of whether we are faced with a family, a village, a tribe, a nation or a people, ‘Others’, meaning foreigners, can never be considered equal to those closest to us, nor enjoy the same rights. Europeans, who have been mentally deformed by the egalitarianism that stems from the Gospels, have become oblivious to the facts that all peoples abide by. Such egalitarian theories are nowadays formulated by ethnopluralists and the advocates of communitarianism, who all preach the ‘right to difference’, which is no longer a reference to the right to be personally different, but an ‘Otherness’ privilege that allows people to enjoy their difference while benefiting from all the advantages offered by our system. What we are facing here is thus a preference for foreigners.
In order to last, a nation (as understood in the etymological sense of the word) must preserve its ethno-cultural homogeneity, the unity of its customs and, of course, the central energy of a ruling state which, even in its federal shape (where is the issue with that?), can only tolerate differences within very specific limits and must be able to seize absolute power in the event of a crisis or deviation (which applies even in the case when it intelligently grants ‘subsidiarity’). Never have great civilisations been polycentric. Unity of command is indispensable for the survival of long-lasting nations, as manifested by China and Japan for centuries on end. Can anyone imagine the existence of a ship, an army or a business that offers its deputy heads of department absolute ‘autonomy’? They would all be doomed to sink. A lasting state can, historically speaking, only allow the presence of tiny minorities within its spectrum, and only insofar as the latter relinquish any and all excessive specificity (whether religious, cultural, linguistic or of any other kind) and smelt their traditions and mentalities into a common mould. In this regard, the neo-tribal philosophy advocated by sociologist Maffesoli is utterly utopian and antipolitical.
Indeed, the principles in accordance with which an organic state is formed demand that the ‘central symphony’ remains undisrupted by dissonances and that the unitary civilisational model only tolerates minor variations. This is because variety is only enriching provided that it occurs within a context of homogeneity, meaning that of global and fundamental ethnic and cultural kinship. In this respect, the presence of allogenous enclaves within a given nation have, ever since the Antiquity, always led to civil war.
A state must have the capacity to claim an absolutist position at any given moment, particularly in case of an emergency. There can be no lasting people in the absence of a powerful state that represents it, for the state is the very structure that holds a people together, acting as both its skeleton and its brain. If decisions were left in the hands of ‘communities’, tribes, and local forces that claim to exercise their own micro-despotisms, anarchy, disaggregation or regression towards backward civilisational forms would not take long to surface. However, this authoritarian state cannot obviously act as a bureaucratic mammoth, but must, instead, play the role of a lean and powerful central structure. It is the very keystone located at the top of the ogive, maintaining the latter’s soundness. And this is precisely how the world of the 21st century is bound to be organised: it will be characterised by the polemical cohabitation of different states rather than the global state or ‘village’ predicted by McLuhan.
Predictions regarding possible ‘networks’ and ‘transversal’ logical reasoning do not correspond with human nature, nor even the laws of History
. This is due to the fact that, as demonstrated by ethologists, human societies are genetically determined by the hierarchy and concentration of the decision-making authority at the centre of the apparatus.
Meanwhile, China, whose discreet power is experiencing an inexorable rise, awaits in ambush, akin to a groundswell … Both Napoleon and Alain Peyrefitte understood it well: ‘The world shall tremble when China awakens’. China, a colossus that had long been dormant, is of an entirely different calibre compared to the ‘Muslim-Arab world’ or Black Africa… The Awakening of the Dragon is one of the principal challenges facing America. China aims to become the foremost world power by approximately 2020.
Owing to the fact that the promethean spirit is entirely absent from their profound mentalities, never would the peoples of the Muslim-Arab world, let alone the various African cultures, be able to master techno-science. Their sole strength lies in their demographics and ability to seep into the northern soil.
Who could ever claim that the Faustian possibilities offered by our techno-science, especially within the scope of its three essential disciplines (namely nuclear physics, informatics and biology), will be unable to resolve numerous global issues, provided that the process is governed by a Nietzschean mentality, meaning one that ventures beyond contemporary morals? Demographic and migratory destiny could thus be reversed.
Notes
(1) What follows is the actual content of the incredible communiqué sent during the night of March the 20th by Alain de Benoist, who, in all likelihood, was in a state of utter delirium:
On Thursday March the 20th 2003, at 03.32 A.M, the military-industrial complex led by George Bush (its current spokesman and a man renowned for being both sociopathic and feeble-minded) initiated a unilateral, cowardly and monstrous war against the Iraqi nation and people, a war that nothing but the American desire to dominate the world could ever justify.
This criminal aggression heralds other such acts, thus marking the official end of international law and ostracising the current American government on a global scale.
The vocabulary that pervades this political cant is that of Soviet propaganda at the time of the Vietnam war, which was subsequently adopted by Khomeiny. What is noteworthy is de Benoist’s claim that the aggression against Iraq constitutes the very first violation of ‘international law’! By making such an assertion, what he does is overestimate Washington and reveal his lack of historical knowledge. Dreaming himself into the role of a French Ayatollah in the struggle against America, he then goes on to issue his own fatwa, a genuine call for terrorism and murder which he will never be prosecuted for, just as Mister Punch has never died as a result of his ridiculousness:
As of this Thursday, March the 20th, at 03.32 A.M [again], all global acts of reprisal targeting both American interests and US military, political, diplomatic and administrational personnel are both legitimate and necessary, regardless of location, magnitude or scope and no matter the means and circumstances.
Paris, March the 20th 2003,
Alain de Benoist
On the next day, having perhaps sobered up under the impact of the probably panicky injunctions expressed by his accomplices and lawyer, our heroic yet hardly audacious predicator-in-chief sends out the following rectification, which testifies to his panic-stricken state of mind. At this lowly level of cowardly denegation, ridiculousness may end up being fatal after all, even without the involvement of our political police. Brace yourselves:
(Follow-up) Communiqué and clarification
I have sent a small number of addressees [sic] a communiqué, in which I have strongly condemned the abominable American aggression against the Iraqi people. Certain reactions [sic] to the above-mentioned communiqué have brought to light a misunderstanding that I would now like to clarify.
When I declared all global acts of reprisal targeting American interests to be legitimate and necessary, I was actually alluding — too hastily, perhaps — to all possible actions that could allow us to impair American hegemony and adversely affect its interests and those of its representatives, and, in short, respond to the aggressive pretentiousness of a hyperpower that has now deliberately displayed a preference for sheer force over legality [how noble of him to preach ‘legality’ after advocating terrorism, I must say].
It was obviously not a matter of condoning such terroristic actions, even if it may have seemed so, since the very principle of terrorism is always reprehensible, especially when it targets civilian populations [In other words, I have never actually written those words; it was a slip of the tongue on my part. Please forgive me, Mr. potential examining magistrate]. I therefore ask all those who have taken the initiative to relay my communiqué to pass on this clarification as well.
Paris, March the 21st 2003
Alain de Benoist
I thus relay both the author’s vindictive communiqué and his pathetic clarification, leaving it up to my readers to make their own judgement and enabling them to become aware of the harmfulness and excess that pervade obsessive anti-Americanism. This constitutes a clumsy alignment with Islamism, whose followers rejoice at the spectacle, and acts as a blessing for American secret services, who, more than anything else, adore powerless and harmless provocateurs that lack genuine arguments. In actual fact, such arguments only serve the interests of ‘anti-terroristic’ imperialism by turning those provocateurs into useful idiots.
One can only be astounded at the sight of the adultescence that characterises the delirious standpoints embraced by a group of ‘intellectuals’ who, by now, should have long overcome the naiveties of youth. They are blatantly ‘under someone’s influence’. The only question is to find out whether the influential factor lies in their own doctrinal logic or in some external agent. I myself would be intuitively inclined to choose the second option.
Chapter IX: The USA and the Domestic Threats It Faces
There is no denying the Islamic implantation in America. Every year, between 50,000 and 80,000 Americans convert to Islam. Instead of slowing the process down, the 9/11 attacks have only served to increase its pace. 87 % of the 1,209 mosques found on American soil were built less than 30 years ago, and as much as 25 % have been constructed during the past ten years. More than half of the faithful encountered at the Islamic Cultural Center in New York are converts, the majority of whom are Black, Asian and Latino. Furthermore, 40 % of the 5 to 8 million American Muslims are converts. As a result of the increasing Muslim immigration originating from Asia and the Arab world, the number of Muslims in the US will have surpassed that of the Jews by 2005. Since the 11th of September 2001, the Koran has become a bestseller. American converts are becoming extremely puritanical and distancing themselves from the American way of life, which they consider both ‘immoral’ and ‘decadent’.
As reported by the UPI agency, the Imam of the Dearborn Heights mosque in Michigan (who ‘immigrated’ from Iran 10 years ago) made the following statement in a sermon last March: ‘We are spreading our faith’s good word across all of America, just as you once sent your missionaries to sub-Saharan Africa’. According to nationalists such as Patrick Buchanan and Pat Robertson, instead of conducting neo-colonial military campaigns in the Middle-East, the American government had better repress the rise of Islam in the US itself.
Mexican illegal immigration is picking up pace along the southern border. According to The USA Daily News Report, an unarmed private militia known as the Civil Homeland Defense (CHD) has been patrolling the US-Mexican border in California and Arizona since March 2003, in an effort to put a stop to the influx of illegal migrants. This motorised militia, consisting of 37 volunteers, apprehends all intruders and hands them over to the Border Patrol for subsequent deportation.
These immigrants are growing ever more numerous and violent, a fact that has led to several pitched battles with intruder groups comprising around one hundred Mexicans who have attempted to forcefully enter US territory. American police authorities have granted the militia their implici
t consent. However, the illegal immigrants that are intercepted and repatriated always hurl insults at both militia members and the police force, before promising to return. The CHD, whose recruitment efforts have been making great headway, uses the following slogan: ‘Supporting Border Patrol to help defend our borders from the invasion’. American nationalists have labelled the Governor of Arizona, Mr. Napolitano, and Congressman Grijalva, both of whom are stout supporters of the war in Iraq and of Mexican origin, as ‘traitors’, accusing them of acting as those illegals’ accomplices and of preferring to ‘send GIs to parade through Mesopotamia rather than defend White America’s southern border against the threat of invasion’. They believe that Mr. Vincente Fox, the Mexican President, is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was. This issue demands further attention, as its geopolitical weight is bound to increase.
***
Inexorably, the Spanish language is gaining ground in the US, resulting in an ever-increasing gnashing of teeth. Here are some facts reported by The International Herald Tribune. In Santa Maria, California, during a district meeting on the topic of school policies, a board member proceeded to slam the door angrily because the pupils’ parents were asking their questions in Spanish. In San Diego, a school principal demanded that parents only speak to their children in English, even at home. In a certain Arizona school, a new rule has been introduced to compel pupils to speak exclusively in English while in the classroom, cafeteria and hallways.
A Global Coup Page 19