Synarchism and the War on Islam

The Dialectic

The conspiracy is not communist or fascist, it is synarchist. The synarchist conspiracy, however, manipulating both ends of the political spectrum, cultivates fear of the threat of “communism” to advance the cause of a fascist economic philosophy known as neoliberalism. By denouncing “Big Government,” they call for the transfer to public property to private corporations, and the enslavement of the world to their banking system, under the guise of the World Bank and the IMF.

Researchers into the history of conspiracy will tend to isolate the notorious Bavarian Illuminati, founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, as the principle subversive society behind world events. However, even the Illuminati itself had its origins in a far more powerful and influential secret society, known as Martinism, which survived the Illuminati, far beyond that order’s demise in 1885.

Martinism is the ultimate diabolical plot, founded on a Kabbalistic agenda that sees history’s problems resolved through the resolution of opposites. But these opposites are not allowed to occur spontaneously, but instead are deliberately fostered, providing these devious plotters with the means of presenting the world their contrived solution, making it appear they have come to their own conclusions.

There are many dialectics at play. Fundamentally, they are rooted in the dualism of God and theism, or truth against falsehood. As the Martinists side against the devil, everything is reversed, where truth becomes falsehood, and falsehood truth.

To the Martinists, history is the story of God’s undoing, being overthrown by humanity. It is the history of secularism, of mankind progressing away from the worship of God to the celebration of himself as the Supreme Being, Nietzsche’s Superman. The End of History is the culmination of centuries of human intellectual progress, of the triumph of “Reason” over “Revelation”.

However, impeding the advent of this New World Order is religion. It’s most threatening current manifestation is Islam. Therefore, in order to prepare the battleground for a final attack, it will be necessary to divide the world in a final dialectic: a Clash of Civilizations, pitting “the West” against “Islam.”

Martinism

Conspiracy Researchers have been obsessing with the same old tired themes, involving the usual culprits, such as the Illuminati, Bildebergers, Federal Reserve and even Jews. One will blame “communism”, the other “fascism,” completely failing to ascertain the true enemy behind these false fronts and means: Synarchism.

Synarchism was a Martinist movement that originated among the immediate circles of Napoleon Bonaparte. Martinism started with French mystic Martinez Pasquales who founded the Ordre des Chevalier Maçons Elus-Coën de L’Univers (Order of the Knight Masons, Elected Priests of the Universe) in 1754. A Martinist named Baron de Gleichen wrote that, “Pasqualis was originally Spanish, perhaps of the Jewish race, since his disciples inherited from him a large number of Jewish manuscripts.”^[1] According to J. M. Roberts, the Elus-Coën philosophy “was expressed in a series of rituals whose purpose was to make it possible for spiritual beings to take physical shape and convey messages from the other world.”^[2]

Martinism was later propagated in different forms by Pasquales’ two students, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin and Jean-Baptiste Willermoz. Willermoz was the formulator of the Rectified Scottish Rite, or Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte (CBCS), as a variant of the Rite of Strict Observance, including some items coming from the Elect Cohen Order of his teacher Pasquales.^[3]

All these orders came under the authority of a single mother lodge, Willermoz’s Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte in Lyons. The Chevalier Bienfaisant oversaw numerous lodges, including a Strict Observance and the Lodge Theodore of Good Counsel in Munich. In 1777, it was into this lodge that was initiated Adam Weishaupt, and which united itself with his own lodge, the Illuminati, which he established the year before.

An important member of the Chevaliers Bienfaisants was Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) who, according to Isaiah Berlin, was a thinker whose works contain the roots of fascist thought, as he outlined in “Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism.” Despite being recognized as a devout Catholic, de Maistre was also a Martinist. As explained by Jerry Muller, “Maistre’s profession of Christianity were certainly sincere. But in his writings it is the social utility of religion as an element of political cohesion which is of concern.”^[4] De Maistre regarded the excesses of the French Revolution as the dire results of resorting to reason. If they are to endure, all institutions of authority must necessarily be irrational. Only an absolute authority can keep man in check.

To de Maistre, Napoleon  was the model tyrant. As an ostensible Catholic, the failure of the French Revolution, according to de Maistre, was that it turned against the word of God and the Catholic Church and was therefore punished by the Reign of Terror and then Napoleon. According to de Maistre, all power is from God, and Napoleon had power, so he therefore saw Napoleon as an instrument of God’s wrath.

Synarchism

The source of the philosophy of synarchism was one of the most notorious intriguers of modern times, a British agent by the name of Jamal ud-Din al Afghani. Although he was the founder of the Salafi tradition of Islam, from which all twentieth century terrorism has emerged, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS, Afghani was simultaneously the Grand Master of Freemasonry in Egypt, as well as teacher to H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, and the godmother of the New Age Movement, whose tomes are considered “scriptures” of Freemasonry.

Going by the name of Haji Sharif, Afghani communicated his deviant ideals to Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre. Saint-Yves, whose books were widely read by the Martinists, propounded the theory of synarchism as a purported response to the ills produced by anarchism and to provide an alternative through the combination of fascism and occultism. Synarchy came to mean “rule by secret societies,” serving as priestly class in direct communication with the “gods,” meaning the Ascended Masters of Agartha, a real existing in a supposedly hollow Earth. There, governed the “King of the World”, equated in occult literature with Satan, who head a hidden hierarchy who have been governing humanity in secret for centuries.

The creation of a United Europe, an idea central to synarchism, was part of the vision of Saint-Yves, a call for which appears on the first page of his first book on synarchy, Keys to the East. The need for Europe to unite under a single, synarchist state, according to Saint Yves, is prompted by the rise of Islam as a world power, which threatens a weak, fragmented, and materialist West. Saint-Yves argues that there must absolutely be a new alliance between the Christian nations of Europe and Israel against Islam.

Saint-Yves envisioned a Federal Europe with a corporatist government, composed of three councils representing economic power, judicial power, and scientific community, of which the metaphysical chamber bound the whole structure together. As part of this concept of government, Saint-Yves attributed an important role to occult secret societies, which are composed of oracles and who safeguard the government from behind the scenes.

Saint-Yves’ followers had finally decided to use more stealthy means, by infiltrating their members into key positions in political and economic institutions intending on creating, in the words of Richard F. Kuisel, a specialist in twentieth-century French political history, “a world government by an initiated elite.”^[5] According to Gérard Galtier, synarchism influenced all the Martinists and occultists of the beginning of the century, and “Without doubt, the Martinist directors such as Papus… had the ambition to secretly influence the course of political events, notably the diffusion of synarchic ideals.”^[6]

Papus’ death in 1916, however, resulted in a schism in the Martinist Order over its involvement in politics. The activists, under Victor Blanchard, who was head of the secretariat of the Chamber of Deputies of the French Parliament, formed a breakaway group, the Martinist and Synarchic Order, which established the Synarchic Central Committee in 1922, designed to pull in promising young civil servants and “younger members of great business families.”^[7] The Committee soon became the Synarchic Empire Movement (MSE) in 1930, with the aim of abolishing parliamentarianism and replacing it with synarchy.

The MSE was headed by Vivien Postel du Mas and Jeanne Canudo, remembered as an energetic campaigner for European unity. Postel du Mas was a member of the Watchers, founded by a French occultist René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz. Despite being born of a Jewish mother, de Lubicz with other members of the Theosophical Society broke away to form an occult right-wing and anti-Semitic organization, which he called Les Veilleurs, “the Watchers,” to which the young Rudolf Hess also belonged.^[8]

Postel du Mas and Canudo both pursued the aims of Saint-Yves for France and a united Europe. Postel du Mas also wrote the Synarchist Pact, which argued, based on the “four orders that correspond to the Hindu caste system,” that a “division of people into order is natural and conforms with tradition,” and set out a program for “invisible revolution” or “revolution from above,” meaning taking over a state from within by infiltrating high offices. The first step was to take control of France, before creating the “European Union.”^[9]

An important witness to their synarchism was the Parisian publisher Maurice Girodias, the founder of the Olympia Press which published erotica as well as works by Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, John Glassco and Christopher Logue. Seeing Postel du Mas and Canudo leading a group dressed as Templar knights wearing red capes and riding boots, Girodias was told they were “schismatic theosophists with political designs, and they are linked to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi… who is a champion of the United States of Europe… Their aim is to launch a pan-European political party and to institute in the entire world, commencing with Europe, a society obedient to a spiritualist idea.”^[10]

Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi was Austrian politician and philosopher, a pioneer of European integration, and also a member of de Lubicz’ Les Veilleurs. Coudenhove-Kalergi's father was also a close friend of Theordor Herzl, founder of Zionism. Coudenhove-Kalergi writes in his Memoirs:

At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us. To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years... Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements. He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life. Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch.^[11]

Coudenhove-Kalergi strove to replace the nationalist German ideal of racial community with the goal of an ethnically heterogeneous and inclusive European nation based on a communality of culture, a nation whose geniuses were, in Nietzschean terms, the “great Europeans,” such as Abbé de Saint-Pierre, Kant, Napoleon, Giuseppe Mazzini, Victor Hugo, and Nietzsche himself, who also cited Napoleon frequently as an example of the Superman.”^[12]

It was through Coudenhove-Kalergi that Saint-Yves’s vision of a synarchist European Union achieved serious political force, when he co-founded the Pan-European Union (PEU) with Archduke Otto von Habsburg. Aristocratic in his origins and elitist in his ideas, Coudenhove-Kalergi identified and collaborated also with such politicians as Engelbert Dollfuss, Kurt Schuschnigg, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. Coudenhove-Kalergi’s movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927, Aristide Briand, who served eleven terms as Prime Minister of France during the French Third Republic, was elected honorary president. Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Konrad Adenauer and Georges Pompidou.^[13]

The first person to join the PEU was Hjalmar Schacht, later Hitler’s Reich Minister of Economics, a member of the Rhodes Round Table and the actual author of Hitler’s slave labor programs.^[14] His full name being Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht, although born in Germany, he spent part of his early upbringing in Brooklyn and maintained powerful Wall Street connections.^[15] Schacht was a close friend of Montagu Norman, Chairman of the Bank of England who was the godfather to one of Schacht's grandchildren. Montagu Norman, from 1933 through 1939, met repeatedly with Hjalmar Schacht to plan the financing of the Nazi regime, and guided the strategies of Hitler’s primary supporters, the Rockefellers, Warburgs, and Harrimans.^[16]

European Union

The European Union began with the founding of the European Movement by Joseph Retinger, who was also one of the founding members of the Bilderberg Group. Funded by the CIA, the super-secret Bilderberg conferences invited the world’s top businessmen, politicians and intelligence officials for what was dubbed “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”^[17] The annual Bilderberg meetings first began in May, 1954, with a group which included George Ball, David Rockefeller, scion of the Rockefeller oil dynasty, Dr. Joseph Retinger, Holland's Prince Bernhard, a former SS officer and IG Farben employee, and George C. McGhee, then of the U.S. State Department and later a senior executive of Mobil Oil.^[18]

Retinger was also a founder of the European Movement that would lead to the creation of the Council of Europe and the European Union. Guided by Winston Churchill, Averell Harriman and Paul-Henri Spaak, the European Movement, explains Frances Stonor Saunders in Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, was closely supervised by and funded by the CIA, through a front organization called the American Committee on United Europe whose first Executive Secretary was Tom Braden.

During the war, Coudenhove-Kalergi had continued his call for the unification of Europe along the Paris-London axis, activities that served as the real-life basis for fictional Resistance hero Victor Laszlo in the movie Casablanca. His appeal for the unification of Europe enjoyed support from Allen Dulles, “Wild Bill” Donovan, former head of the OSS, and Winston Churchill, who began promoting European unity from 1930 and presided over the Congress of Europe. Churchill wrote a foreword to the Count’s book, An Idea Conquers the World. In 1947, Coudenhove-Kalergi had set up the European Parliamentary Union (EPU), which played a prominent role in the Congress of Europe at The Hague. The EPU later merged with the European Movement and Coudenhove-Kalergi was elected its honorary president in 1952.

In 1949, Retinger formed the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) along with future CIA Director Allen Dulles, then CFR Director George Franklin, Tom Braden, and William Donovan. “Later on” said Retinger, “whenever we needed any assistance for the European Movement, Dulles was among those in America who helped us most.”^[19]According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and reporting from declassified American government documents, “The leaders of the European Movement—Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian Prime Minister Henri Spaak—were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.”^[20]

The “European project” itself began in 1950 with French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman’s announcement that France and West Germany had agreed to co-ordinate their coal and steel industries. Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg took up his offer to join in, leading seven years later to the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community (EEC), from which the European Union traces its origins.

Robert Shuman became the first president of the European Parliament in 1958. But it was Jean Monnet who became president of the new body, called the High Authority and who was the primary influence behind the movement. Monnet was at the time the most influential businessman and economist in post-war Europe. In 1936, Vivien Postel du Mas, told Girodias that, along with Coudenhove-Kalergi, Monnet was an influential promoter of the synarchist agenda. Another of Ulmann and Azeau’s MSE informants described Monnet as a “true synarch… whose membership of the movement was never in doubt for the true initiates.”^[21]

The Necessary Enemy

It was due to the efforts of Alexandre Kojève and Jean Monnet that the European Union, which was a synarchist project, took on its current form.^[22] Kojève (1902 – 1968) was a Russian-born French philosopher and statesman, and nephew of abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky.

Kojève, who was the eminence grise at the French Ministry Economic Affairs, was one of the earliest architects of the European Union and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). He exerted a great deal of influence over Olivier Wormser, who played a key role in negotiating the Treaty of Rome, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who became president of France in 1974, and who throughout his political career had consistently been a proponent of greater European union.

According to Barbara Boyd, Kojève “was not only an ideologue of universal fascism, but he was also a leading figure in the most powerful fascist circles of 20th-Century France, the Synarchists.”^[23] These circles included Carl Schmitt (1888 – 1985), described as the “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”^[24] Throughout his career, Schmitt was under the protection of Hermann Göring, Hitler's Reichsmarschall during the war and the leading synarchist figure in Nazi Germany.^[25] In 1933, he was appointed State Councilor by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Union of National-Socialist Jurists. As professor at the University of Berlin, he presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the “Führer” state with regard to legal philosophy.

An avowed proponent of Machiavelli and de Maistre, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper “The developed the concept of the seizure of power by a powerful determined leader through the pretext of a state of emergency. Schmitt preferred a “sovereign dictator” who would be able to take decisive action to meet the threats of the state. Effectively, a state of emergency presupposes the threat of a specific public enemy against whom a legitimate charismatic leader must exercise a sovereign decision.

Schmitt also developed the doctrine of a necessary enemy. Schmitt proposed that there is a domain of life distinct from all the others, which he called the “political.” According to Schmitt, each area of human existence has its own particular form of dualism: in morality there is good and evil, in economics profits and liabilities, in aesthetics beauty and ugliness and so on. The “political,” for Schmitt, was based on the distinction between “friend” and “enemy.” The political exists wherever there exists an enemy, a group which is different and holds different interests, and with whom there is a possibility of conflict. A population can be unified and mobilized through the political act, in which an enemy is identified and confronted.^[26]

As Bryan Turner summarizes in “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism”:

Schmitt argued that the political was defined in terms of the decisive struggle between friend and enemy, and without such a struggle authentic values could not be protected or sustained. More precisely, power involved a struggle between civilizations to define the content of a vibrant ethical life…

Political life cannot survive without the sovereignty of the state, and the sovereignty of the state is constituted by the capacity of a leader to undertake effective decisions in a situation of crisis. Democratic debate and deliberation can only undermine the capacity of the leader of the Reich to act with determination and clarity of vision.^[27]

A member of the Nazi Party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.^[28] In 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives, a purge by the Nazi regime that carried out murders of several left-wing and anti-Nazi leaders, as the “highest form of administrative justice" and the authority of Hitler in a work titled "The leader defends the law.”^[29]

When Schmitt fell out of favor with the SS he travelled to Spain, Portugal, and Italy under synarchist sponsorship, providing lectures on how to continually legitimize the fascist governments of those nations.^[30] Following his capture in 1945 by the American forces, and after spending more than a year in an internment camp, Schmitt refused every attempt at de-Nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the academic and political community, he continued his studies, especially of international law.

From the 1950s on, Schmitt received a steady stream of visitors, which included Kojève, and he edited Kojève’s Introduction to a Reading of Hegel.^[31] Kojève’s philosophical seminars on Hegel are believed to have “dramatically shaped the French intellectual landscape of this century.”^[32] For Kojève, the creation of the EEC gave concrete form to the Hegelian dream of forging Europe into an example of a world state which, he thought, alone was capable of resolving “all the contradictions of earlier stages of history” and of satisfying “all human needs.”^[33]

Kojève’s vision of a world state was developed from his interpretation of Hegel that was based on a combination of both Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger’s thought. Soon after Hitler came to power, Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933, and remained a member of the Party until it was dismantled at the end of WWII, though the relation between his philosophy and Nazism are still highly controversial, especially because he never seemed to express any clear regret.

Like Marx, Kojève believed that man is the moving force of history. Unlike the Right Hegelians however, who identify Hegel's Spirit with God, Kojève follows the Left Hegelians who adhere to the tradition of Marx's version of Hegelianism, which instead sees history as being shaped by man. In Alexander Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics, historian Shadia Drury describes Kojève’s historicism, which betrays the Kabbalistic basis of the Hegelian dialectic:

In contrast to the Right Hegelian interpretation, Kojève followed Feurerbach and Marx in considering God a mere projection of man's own idealized conception of himself. In this view, the dualism between man and himself (projected as God) is transcended in the course of the historical process. At the "end of history,” man recognizes God as his own creation, and is no longer alienated from himself because he has become one with himself, or his own idealized view of himself. So understood, history is man's own self-making project. This is the reason that Kojève's interpretation is often characterized as "Marxist humanism.”^[34]

To Kojève, the age of revolutions is over. The end of history has long been settled, ever since Napoleon’s battle of Jena in 1806. From that date forward, the nations around the world have shared the same principles, hopes, and aspirations. Everything since the battle of Jena, which is otherwise mistaken as history, has simply been a matter of resolving the “anachronistic sequels” of Europe’s pre-Revolutionary past. Nevertheless, Kojève recognizes that there will continue to be resistance by the “sick” who cannot recognize the new universal state as the conclusion of nature itself. Kojève therefore claims that the end-state or universal state will require a universal tyrant.

As Shadia Drury explains, “By reading Hegel through the lenses of Heidegger as well as Marx, Kojève gave birth to that curious phenomenon known as existential Marxism, which is epitomized by the works of Sartre.”^[35] Kojève inspired Jean-Paul Sartre by placing particular emphasis on terror as a necessary component of revolution. The fulfillment of the End of History is “not possible without a Fight” he said^[36] Building on Hegel’s dialectic, Kojève perceived that the “slave,” to overcome his “master,” must “introduce into himself the element of death” by risking his life while being fully conscious of his mortality. As a result, scholars describe Kojève as having a “terrorist conception of history.”^[37] As Kojève explains, philosophers are less restrained by conventions and more capable or resorting to terror, and other measures that may be deemed “criminal,” if such measures are effective in accomplishing the desired end.^[38]

Neoconservatives

Kojève’s notion of Hegel’s End of History was later advanced by Francis Fukuyama, where it became the basis for the fanatical Zionist ambitions of the American neoconservative movement, and their formulation of a “Clash of Civilizations”, otherwise known as the War on Terror, or more precisely the War on Islam.

The Neoconservatives’ worldview was inspired by German-Jewish political philosopher Leo Strauss, who maintained a life-long friendship with Alexandre Kojève. As a youth, Strauss was converted to political Zionism and would also attend courses at the University of Freiburg taught by Martin Heidegger. Because of the Nazis’ rise to power, Strauss chose not to return to the United States, where he spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago. The same university became known for the Chicago School, the bastion of neoliberal economic theory, headed by Milton Friedman.

A significant influence on Leo Strauss was Carl Schmitt, despite his Nazi past.^[39] Schmitt’s highly positive reference was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany. In turn, Strauss’s critique and clarifications of The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932, and summarized the implications of his political theology as follows:

[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state.^[40]

Kojève and Strauss both played a major role in Schmitt’s postwar “rehabilitation.” In 1955, Kojève addressed a group of Düsseldorf businessmen at Schmitt’s invitation, and Schmitt attempted to arrange a private meeting between Kojève and Hjalmar Schacht.^[41] And throughout his career in the US, Strauss regularly sent his leading disciples to study under Kojève in Paris. For example, Strauss’s top protégé the late Allan Bloom travelled to Paris annually, from 1953 up until Kojève’s death in 1968, to study Kojève’s Nietzschean fascist beliefs. Bloom would consider Kojève to be one of his greatest teachers.^[42]

For Strauss, Kojève’s End of History is the result of all the errors of modernity and its values of liberalism. The error of liberalism is that it has departed from the wisdom of the ancients, who recognized the inevitability of a natural hierarchy among men.  This led Strauss followers, who had all been leading exponents of Leon Trosky, to flip flop to the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, to become “neoconservatives,” espousing neoliberal economics in combination with pro-Zionism.

Ultimately, the social upheavals of the sixties caused by liberalism were perceived by the neoconservatives as a “rotting” through America’s lack of self-confidence and belief in itself. Therefore, to reinvigorate America’s sense of identity, the neoconservatives took hold of Strauss’ notion of the need to resort to Noble Lies. They would fabricate the mythos that America was the only source for “good” in the world, and should be supported, otherwise “evil” would prevail.

After Nixon was forced to resign in 1974, the neoconservatives allied themselves with two right-wingers in the administration of his successor Gerald Ford, who used the escalation of terrorism as a pretext to adopt a hard line against Soviet communism. They were Donald Rumsfeld, the new secretary of defense, and Dick Cheney, Ford’s Chief of Staff. While Nixon had initiated a period of détente with the Soviet Union, Rumsfeld resuscitated the old paranoia by now giving speeches about the Soviet’s “steadiness of purpose” in building up their military defenses relative to those of the United States. The CIA denied the allegations, confirming that they were a complete fiction. But Rumsfeld used his position to persuade Ford to set up an independent inquiry, which he insisted would prove that there was a hidden threat to America. That inquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives, one of whom was Paul Wolfowitz, a personal protégé of Kojève student Allan Bloom.

The neoconservatives’ new strategy began to achieve dangerous proportions when in 1992 Wolfowitz, as Dick Cheney’s undersecretary of defense for policy, authored a “Defense Planning Guidance Paper,” which outlined the US’ strategic priorities in the post-Cold War era. Leaked to the New York Times, the document prescribed securing global supremacy for the US through military confrontation with various regimes, calling for America to assert its interests wherever they existed, with particular emphasis on oil supplies and the security of Israel

According to the authors, it was time for the US to achieve unparalleled military superiority through a massive build up of the country’s military capabilities. This same worldview was furthered with the creation of a specifically designed think tank, known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The signatories to the project included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and leading neoconservatives, like Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Elliot Abrams, who had been found guilty of lying about his role in the Iran-Contra operation, but was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.

In particular, the PNAC was concerned with the political situation in the Middle East, shaped largely by the new paradigm articulated by Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, that pitted Western secular democracy against Islamic fundamentalism. Western liberal democracy, we are told, is the “End of History” in a Hegelian sense, representing the triumph of centuries of intellectual progress. Fukuyama was strongly influenced by Kojève who, as early as 1948, believed that the United States was the model of economic life at the end of history. Long before the Cold War came to an end, Kojève anticipated the triumph of America over the Soviet Union, anticipating that it would not be a military triumph, but an economic one._[43]

Ultimately, Fukuyma’s claim is an advancement of the same synarchist dialectic. In other words, combined with the advent of secular democracy, the supremacy of “Western” civilization supposedly marks the culmination of human intellectual evolution. In Fukuyama’s own words:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.^[44]

It was in response to Fukuyama’s claim that Samuel Huntington developed the notion of a “Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by conflict between cultural blocs. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines. He suggests that it is different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, that will become increasingly useful to analyze the potential for conflict.

As Fukuyama wrote in a 2008 Washington Post opinion piece, “Democracy’s only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism.”^[45] However, the fabrication of the supposed threat of Islam obviously disguised more nefarious political goals. As Gilles Keppel explained:

Huntington's clash of civilization theory facilitated the transfer to the Muslim world of a strategic hostility the West had inherited from decades of Cold War. The parallel drawn between the dangers of communism and those of Islam gave Washington's strategic planners the illusion that they could dispense with analyzing the nature of the Islamic "menace" and could simply transpose the conceptual tools designed to apprehend one threat to the very different realities of the other.

The neoconservative movement played a crucial role in bringing about this rhetorical permutation. It placed a facile way of thinking in the service of a precise political agenda, aimed at expanding the American democratic model into the Middle East – the only part of the world that it had not penetrated at the end of the twentieth century – and at modifying U.S. policy in the region to give Israel's security precedence over an alliance with the Saudi petro-monarchy.^[46]

The truth is, rather, there is no real “democracy” in the West. The sham of the serial dictatorships, where the people are told who to vote for every four years, is designed to hide the West is composed of oligarchies. Industrial interests use their influence over the government, the media and the educational system, to pursue their shared globalist aspirations. As summarized by Bryan Turner, “the popular debate about the Huntington thesis has obscured its intellectual dependence on an academic tradition of political philosophy that sought to define sovereignty in terms of civilizational struggles between friend and foe, namely the legacy of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss.”^[47]