A Global Coup

by Guillaume Faye

  ***

  The text then continues in a manner that confirms our suspicion thanks to the farfetched arguments that the author resorts to:

  He [the ‘Arab’] is only accepted in France because of our adoption of the American multiracial model (which is publicised on a daily basis through American films, television series, videos, games and records). It is because we have been Americanised that we are mentally prone to being invaded; territorial occupation will only cease when our mental colonisation does.

  We are drowning in delirium at this stage. The author has truncated the sociological reality, history and very nature of American society and culture, which he is clearly unfamiliar with. According to him, it is allegedly our mental Americanisation that has triggered our acceptance of uncontrolled immigration flows, our ‘multiracial society’, our loss of ethnic identity and our tolerance towards the massive and ever-increasing Islamic presence…

  To believe this is to forget that this cosmopolitan, egalitarian and multi-ethnic ideology is definitely of French origin and that those horrible ‘Yankees’ cannot be blamed for any of it. The roots of the above-mentioned ideology reach deep into the Encyclopaedist world and the Enlightenment period (the secularisation of Catholic charitableness), with its initial manifestation dating back to the start of our colonial adventure and World War I. The ‘family reunification’ introduced by Giscard and Chirac was neither inspired by the Pentagon, nor by American TV series. Claiming otherwise is synonymous with bestowing a fictitious and oneiric sort of importance upon ‘cultural Americanisation’; to seek a cause-and-effect connection between mental Americanisation and the acceptance of our ‘invasion’ relates to a bazar-like type of sociology, if you do not mind my saying so.

  Incidentally, if the author were truly familiar with American mass culture, especially in the cinematographic and audio-visual sphere, he would have noticed that the topics of miscegenation, immigration, the social melting-pot and even behavioural decadence are very rarely encountered there, while remaining prevalent in all of our French productions. Generally speaking, anyone that has ever lived in the USA (which is obviously not the author’s case) can testify to the fact that the general mental and cultural atmosphere can hardly be described as favourable to ethnic intermixing. Provided that he has cable TV access, the author could have a closer look at American and French advertisements and compare the two. His findings would definitely come as a surprise to him.

  The criticism of American culture is only credible when the focus is actually on the latter and not on our impression of it based on some ideological grid. Allow me to add something that I have repeatedly tried to explain to those emotion-driven Americanophobes (but all in vain): the most apologetic productions regarding our European culture and its profound ethnic roots have (unfortunately, one might say) come from this ever-abhorred ‘planet Hollywood’, whose sense of epics is far more developed than that of our subsidised national cinematographers. There is simply no denying this. For no theory could ever be proven correct through imaginary ‘facts’.

  It is of course certain that, on an audio-visual level, American mass culture is mostly far from being brilliant and that its ambition is to homogenise people’s minds. However, it must not be subjected to any caricaturing; instead, one must acknowledge the fact that such criticism is hardly applicable to all American productions. Furthermore, the frenzied desire to praise the sociological ‘model’ of ethnic chaos (often encountered in Europe) is absent from even the most pathetic American productions.

  Moreover, in order to invalidate the absurd suggestion that the Americanisation of European minds has led to our mental acceptance of the invasion (according to the author’s claims), it is the example of Japan that serves as an argumentum a contrario. How is it possible that this country, which has been subjected to forced Americanisation for almost sixty years now and is an island of great wealth and a magnet, so to speak, has always rejected immigration and remained mono-ethnic? The reasoning according to which ‘mental Americanisation implies colonisation at the hands of foreign migrants’ is thus precisely what rhetoricians would term ‘a sophism’.

  ***

  The Polémia author then engages in a sociological attempt at analysing ‘suburban youths’. He accumulates numerous clichés that one, unfortunately, often hears in Identitarian milieus:

  Our second enemy is not Islam, but immigration. Those “suburban youths” are only Muslims on the surface, whenever indulging in temporary acts of provocation; they are, however, profoundly Americanised, as confirmed by their caps, tracksuits, trainers, ghetto-blasters, rap music, tagging, drugs, attacks against teaching staff, and their use of gangrape as a gang cohesion rite, none of which bears any connection to the Islamic culture. Such behaviour, in fact, has but one source: North American gang culture. Islam only plays a certain role through Americanisation itself, meaning through young people’s imitation of the Black Panthers, Cassius Clay, Farrakhan, and so on. Immigration is not, above all, an Islamisation factor, but one of Americanisation: from the second generation onwards, immigrants find themselves unable to live in accordance with their original culture, with a far lesser capacity to integrate into the French one. They are rootless parasites, only able to assimilate into the sole civilisation that has turned rootlessness into its very foundation: North America.

  The first thing to notice here is the author’s strange concern with treating Islam with utmost care, attempting, at the very least, to minimise the latter’s role. His ignorance regarding those ‘housing estate youths’ is, however, complete: unlike what has been falsely claimed, Islamisation is progressing at a brisk pace (even if it is not mystical in nature and only serves as a ‘banner of ethnic assertion’), at a time when American clothing and alimentary trends are experiencing a general decline in favour of ostentatious ‘neo-Islamic’ behaviour. The re-learning of the Arabic language is currently soaring, while all references to Americanism and the ‘black’ American syndrome have actually been dropping, especially since the occupation of Iraq, with the majority of North African ‘Brown-Blacks’ now considering the USA to be the Great Satan. In such areas, the first names given to newborn babies are neither American, nor French, but in 95 % of all cases Muslim-Arab; and let me tell you, ‘Usama’ is far from being at the bottom of the list.

  The new generations of immigrant descent have, unlike what the author blindly claims, been massively reembracing their original culture, reinventing it and even readapting it at times, all in accordance with an aggressive kind of ingeniousness. They are all far more ‘rooted in this original culture’ than their parents ever were (even if their ways are new and different). Any attempt to turn them into miserable and rootless individuals is a grave mistake, a cliché spread by the extreme Left. For it is in fact the ‘little Whiteys’ that find themselves in this situation today. Those immigrants are perfectly content with living in a society that they can sponge off of and which they have the impression of invading. They have no desire to be ‘frenchified’ at all, as they have created a new identity for themselves, one that is, unfortunately, much stronger than that of our native French people. To present them as being the destitute victims of a ‘rootlessness’ imposed upon them by the USA is an absolutely ridiculous claim and a potential source of laughter for the subjects themselves. Let us not linger on this matter, though.

  A small side-comment: regarding ‘rap’ (a popular music genre characterised by a ‘rapping’ rhythm that initially surfaced in the black parts of Brooklyn during the 1970s), the similarity between the American and French kind is becoming less and less evident, as the latter is now openly racist and anti-European. Also, since American pop music has been accused of perverting young people’s minds, rock’n’roll, country music and the crooners’ melodies should equally be mentioned at this stage, for their message is in no way degenerative, nor is it spiteful towards Whites, and all three are broadcasted a hundred times more often in the US than ‘rap’, which remains highly marginal in r
adio programmes and record shops. Johnny Hallyday, Eddy Mitchell and many others who have drawn inspiration from them and have thus objectively ‘Americanised’ French songs never engage in spreading pro-immigration, multiracial, Islamophilic or even politicised messages! Apart from the ‘Black-White-Brown’ rap genre heavily broadcasted on all private and public radio channels, it is, in fact, the famous ‘politically committed’ French music genre (including, for instance, murderer Bertrand Cantat’s band known as ‘Noir Désir’ and subsidised by Jack Lang) that served as a tool for the immigrationist, ‘tolerant’, multiracial and Trotskyite ideology to exploit under a veneer of feigned rebellion and romanticism. This ‘politically committed’ French music, usually involving Americanophobic composers and singers, has remained prevalent since the 1960s — just think of Moustaki, Ferrat, Ferrer, Nougaro, Perret, Reggiani, Renaud, Balavoine and, further back, impostor and pseudo-poet Boris Vian, along with an entire horde of musicians who are all very French indeed. The messages spread by this music (considered ‘artistic’ and therefore listened to much more often by our elites than neutral rock music or insignificant and artificial American dance music) are clearly more dangerous to our profound identity and values than all those popular and industrial American music genres, which, incidentally, are not all necessarily rubbish.

  And don’t even get me started on the pro-immigration and cosmopolitan plugging that our National Education, Radio France, France 2, France 3 TV series, Arte shows and many others indulge in. What I detect in them is much more of a Trotskyite, progressive Christian, champagne socialist and bohemian-bourgeois influence than a Yankee one.

  ***

  The author continues his argumentation in the same vein:

  In its Islamist form, however, Islam is definitely our enemy, occupying third position in this hierarchy. And yet, it is only our foe because the United States has enabled its rebirth by supporting global decolonisation efforts that target European states, including France (the fact that America supported the FLN is by no means a secret), by financing the armed Islamist re-emergence during the war in Afghanistan’, and last but not least, by supporting the expansion of Islamic republics across Europe, all of which tend to undermine the development of European power from within […], or exerting immense pressure upon European member-states to allow a re-Islamised Turkey to enter the European Union.

  Why did the author choose to begin with the words ‘in its Islamist form? Would a non-Islamist version of Islam be acceptable in France? Why, that sounds just like what Sarkozy would say! A very ambiguous statement on his part…

  He then sinks, once again, into sophistry and flawed analysis. It is perfectly clear that Washington has exploited both Islam and Islamism by encouraging fundamentalism, subsidising the mujahideen and arming them first against Russia and now against our own continent. The author, however, displays astounding naivety in his belief that, without Washington’s involvement, Islamism and the global Islamic outbreak would not exist! In actual fact, nothing would be different at all. I would also like to respond to those who claim that Ariel Sharon’s policy, and that of his Israeli administration, is among the main causes of global Islamic terrorism: even if the Israeli state did not exist, even if Palestine had never experienced the Jewish chokehold, the Islamic conquering wave (with Islamism acting as its spearhead and not as its dissident aspect) would remain unchanged, making use of other pretexts instead. This is because the Koranic tactic requires Muslims to always depict themselves as the victims of an attack or aggression in order to justify their own offensive. They always manage to designate someone else as being an oppressor, thus turning themselves into martyrs.

  Islam’s historic global surge, experienced as a kind of rebirth, and the simultaneous rise of fundamentalism embody a groundswell that has strictly nothing to do with Washington’s policy. Muslim immigration into Europe (totalling 90 % of the overall influx) is neither caused by the USA, nor is it the result of disastrous liberal management; it is, in fact, triggered by the suction pump of financial aid, subvention, protection against deportation, and all the other guarantees offered by socio-democratic states that have been gangrened by humanitarianism and cosmopolitanism, whose moral roots are actually found right here, in Europe. It is likewise perfectly possible for Europeans to oppose any prospect of Turkish EU membership; The USA is obviously pushing for this to happen, as it is all fair game; but it is essentially European leaders (as heard in Chirac’s and Schröder’s declarations) that are choosing to yield to Turkish demands, going as far as to desire Turkish membership. As already stated, it would be unwholesome for me to systematically justify our ailments through the actions of the Great American Satan, as this Polémia author has clearly chosen to. Doing so would exempt us from taking any responsibility.

  ***

  Let us now focus on the next part of the argumentation, whose author is confident enough not to fear derision. What does he claim is the main purpose of American imperialism?

  The ambition is to create a homogeneous market with endless opportunities for American products, one that would be omnipotently governed by Washington.

  On the contrary, however, it is widely known that the American problem lies in its commercial deficit and delocalisation; that America is being flooded by foreign imports, especially Asian and European ones; and that the USA has not been attempting to ‘submerge the world with its products’ for more than 30 years. The reason behind American neo-imperialism and the latter’s economic foundations are entirely different:

  1) To gain control of raw material sources.

  2) To continue attracting 75 % of all global investment savings.

  3) To acquire a monopoly over high technology.

  Here is yet another passage taken from the very same text: it is a textbook case of truly ill-argued anti-Americanism, one that is emotional and must at all costs be avoided, since it clearly plays into the hands of Atlanticist milieus through its accumulation of indefensible clichés.

  We are facing the rapidly materialising nightmare of witnessing the global expansion of what life in the urban agglomerations of the American North-east is like: an absence of history, an absence of popular tradition, the absence of any aristocratic substratum, an absence of art, and an absence of mystique, paired with omnipresent multiracial delirium, generalised rootlessness, blatantly selfish individualism, and energic wastefulness, in addition to the prevalence of a showbiz society pervaded by a culture of immediacy, degenerate pop art, primal Protestant puritanism and a corresponding worship of money.

  Europe is thus said to be polluted by this model, for we have

  … racial chaos, and particularly Africanisation, urban anomy, an ugly and stench-infested tube, omnipresent advertising, fast-food establishments, tagged walls, and the sound of rap music being played on all radio channels […], not to forget jeans, the uniform that the forces of occupation have managed to impose where others have failed. And, above all that, what we have in our offices is an arrogant international lobby fashioned according to the trends of Wall Street, Manhattan and Hollywood.

  Such a text is both distressing and unworthy of Polémia. Everything in this adolescent and impassionate condemnation is either false or excessive (perhaps even hateful). The vocabulary itself is childish (‘nightmare’?). The tragedy of such analyses lies in the fact that they draw those European patriots who are at least somewhat familiar with the US away from anti-Americanism, giving up on the latter. Standard-wise, it is akin to the clumsily anti-American Stalinist propaganda of the 1950s, thus discrediting all that motivates the resistance to American imperialism.

  Here are some examples of plain and simple untruths: those ‘urban agglomerations of the American North-East’ are far more European in nature than the French, Belgian, Dutch and German conurbations are. It pains me to say this, but it is true. Is this ‘absence of history, popular tradition, aristocratic substratum, art and mystique’ (what on earth is ‘mystique’ anyway?) supposedly characteristic of t
he USA? How can anyone write such rubbish (pardon my choice of words, but there is no other way for me to express this)? Is the USA the land of ‘racial delirium’, then? This is undoubtedly the reason why at Palm Springs, where I was tasteless enough to live, an interiorised social practice of ethnic separation is rigorously implemented, just as it is in thousands of other American counties. Furthermore, the USA is allegedly the model of ‘generalised rootlessness’. I am certain that this is what accounts for the fact that uniforms are imposed upon children at school and that the school programmes in 20 American states comprise the learning of folk songs. A country of ‘blatantly selfish individualism’? When one considers the entire West, it is in the USA that one finds the highest number of associations that focus on social support and familial solidarity. ‘Rap’ is played on all radio channels, you say? A hundred times less than in France! In the US, one can actually only listen to it on a small number of Black radio channels. ‘Racial chaos and Africanisation’? Our Polémia author is clearly unaware of the fact that there are dozens of TV and radio channels in the US that are characterised by a very high cultural level, do not include any advertisements at all and are financed by private foundations. He is, likewise, oblivious to the fact that American universities fund various courses centred around the teaching of our French culture and our country’s history (thus replacing the ‘Alliance Française’ without receiving any credits) and that these courses offer a quality that is superior to that of our French universities.