Main theories and main Books  of Alexandre del Valle 

 

The "Islamist Totalitarianism"

 

Following the September 11 attacks, del Valle published an essay entitled, "Islamist Totalitarianism: Democracies Under Attack." In this essay, Del Valle asserted that radical Islam was not merely a fundamentalist ideology, but a totalitarian one. He argued that radical Islam is an imperialist doctrine more comparable to Stalinism or Nazism than to other fundamentalist religions such as Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism as "no other religious fundamentalism is as much universally criminal, globally barbaric, aggressively proselytizing, fundamentally theocratic as is Islamism."

Del Valle contended that Islamic totalitarianism is partly based on the "dominant orthodox Sunni Islam" that has been frozen since the 10th century. After that, this original orthodox Salafi Islamism transformed itself into a "totalitarianism" after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the decolonization of Arab-Muslim countries, between 1850 and 1920 eas, when the Islamist totalitarianism offered to solve all the evils in the Muslim countries by establishing the Shariah and by settling a score with the Western "Imperialist" – "infidel -Judeo-Crusaders" as well as liberal Muslims, "the primary victims" of Radical Islamism.

According to Del Valle, this Islamic fascism is the ideology of Total Hatred of the Other (the classical paranoid theory of scapegoating), hence the Islamists' rehabilitation of the texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf. And according to the author, this "Third Islamist Totalitarianism", contrary to Nazism or Stalinism, is the first one which does not come from the "white Judeo-Christians", the first "exotic totalitarianism" which origins in the South, even if its primary victims are none other but Muslims themselves and non-Muslim minorities living under Sharià. That's why it speaks in the name of "Victims", of the "Oppressed" living in the poor Third World, and of the "humiliated ones" in the Arab world (humiliated by Jews, Crusaders, and "Apostates". But its ultimate goal is nothing else but the New Final Solution of the Secular and democratic West and the Free World. It's why main Arab-Islamic leaders never were ashamed to make alliance with Nazis and fascists, from the 1920–30 era (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, etc.).

After the "red totalitarianism", founded on the notion of the Struggle of Classes; the "Brown totalitarianism", founded on the notions of the Struggle of Races; there comes the "Green Totalitarianism", founded on the notion of the Struggle of Religions and Civilizations...

Valle claims to work with moderate Muslims such as Mezri Haddad (former Ambassador of Tunisia at the United NAtions), Houchang Nahavandi (former Education Minister of Iranian monarchy), or Dalil Boubakeur (former Grand Imam of Paris Grand Mosque), who publicly supported him and explained that Alexandre del Valle was a supporter of a modern and secular Islam and only denounced radical Islam just as many Muslims do.

 

The development of Radical islamism

 

"Radical Islamist" doctrine is not a simple "fundamentalist" or "revivalist" vision of the religion or a "integrist" side of a faith or "sect", like some vangelical, Jewish groups or like Jehovah. It’s a totalitarian ideology that mix politics and religion and aims to dominate the entire Humanity, like Nazism or Communism. It describes organizations, radical islamic States and islamist groups who oppose "moderate islam", share a common theocratic/neo-imperialist project that aims to submit non-Muslims/bad Muslims and dominate the World by proselytism or by force in the Name of Islamic law (Sharià), islamist supremacism, and its consequence: the worldwide Caliphate Empire. This global project is composed by almost two complementary blocks that both jeopardize the Open societies use different methods and strategies: first " islamic Terrorism ( or "Jihadism", like Al Qaïda, Hamas, ISIS, etc), and secondly "Political Islamism" (Muslim Brotherhoods, Turkish AKP's ruling Party, etc). This second category seems less violent than jihadism and is sometime openly anti-terrorist. Anyway, both share the same ideological sunni-hanbali-salafi Islamist sources, and both aim to settle a theocratic global hegemony. Some "political islamist" groups have been sometime supported by some of the Western countries "allies" such as  Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait. And it's why the West finds it difficult to get rid of this "multifaced" and complex global threat. 

Radical Islamism has also received an "external" ideological and geopolitical totalitarianist influence from Communism (tactics, revolutionnarist organization, Third-Worldism, antizionism, etc) and from Nazism (which brought its obsessive antisemitism, its Cult of the Plot and its Absolute violence). Like other totalitarian totalitarianism, Radical Islamism is based on absolute violence, the scrupulousness of terror as a system of government, conspiracy worship, chief worship and falsehood, which brings it closer in many respects. These essential points fundamentally distinguish them from a fundamentalist who must practice a certain virtue and respect certain rules. 

 

The "anti-Western- paradoxal Red-Green-Brown Alliance"

 

In this book, entitled The Reds, The Browns and the Greens (Communists, Nazis and Islamists), based on his PhD research, Alexandre del Valle describes the new anti-Western and anti-American totalitarian Axis composed of Islamists, Communists, and neo-Nazis. Del Valle describes the emergence of a Red-Green-Brown Axis: the Red of the extreme left, the Brown of the extreme right, and the Green of islamism. Del Valle shows that islamism, the third totalitarianism after nazism and communism, extends the aspirations of its two predecessors: seizing the struggle of civilizations and religions then declaring war on the non-Muslim world in the name of the "dispossessed". This totalitarianism seduces as much those nostalgics for the pagan Third Reich, resolved to eradicate Judaism and Christianity, as it does those partisans of communism, determined to come to blows with capitalism and the West. According to this theory, the different components of this Axis have for a common objective the struggle against the new faces of Evil: America, Israel, Imperialism, and even the West in its entirety. This junction of "red", "brown", and "green" totalitarianisms around the cause of Palestinian martyrs, Iraqis and Afghans, as much as the revolutionary figure of Osama bin Laden, confirms the leadership, henceforth uncontested, of revolutionary islamism. From now on, this exerts a real fascination upon the other totalitarian options defeated by history (nazism and communism) and, consequently, condemned either to reconstitute themselves or to join the islamist revolution in order to pursue their struggle against liberal democracies. According to Alexandre Del Valle, this alliance between the New Third World (Hugo Chavez's anti-American regime and its Bolivian and Cuban allies), the islamists and the Rogue States such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan and pro-Palestinian terrorists movements will be in the future the main danger for both North America and Europe.

 

The "Pan-West paradigm"

 

Alexandre Del Valle has advocated for the creation of a new "pan-Western" organization which would gather more strongly the USA and old Europe. He believes America and Europe should convince Russia to join its alliance instead of supporting anti-Western coalitions led by China, Iran and Venezuela. In 2000, after the Kosovo war, Del Valle wrote that it is necessary for the West to criticize Washington and European mistakes when USA and EU supported the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and continue to do so. He also deplored the anti-Russian and anti-Serbian attitudes that agitated the Cold War period and incited Moscow to join the anti-western Axis. Back then, he condemns those expressing anti-American feelings in Europe, Latin America and Russia. He suggests the promotion of a strategic alliance between the three western keystone states: the USA, Orthodox Europe and Western Europe should build a stronger alliance in the face of Islamic threat.

 

The "Post-Kemalist" and "neo-ottoman"/"national-islamist" Turkey

 

Since 2004, Alexandre del Valle is studying the growth of political Islam in Turkey and its application to join the European Union. Del Valle opposes the accession of Turkey to the European Union. In his opinion, Turkey is neither European culturally nor geographically (except for Istanbul and Thrace). Even if a small Kemalist minority or the inhabitants of the posh suburbs of Istanbul feel European, the inhabitants of east Istanbul, Ankara or Anatolia feel closer to their Iraqi neighbors than to Europeans or Christian Greeks. Del Valle believes that NATO, which Turkey belongs to, is not the key for the entry into the European Union. Saying that it is necessary to integrate Turkey so as to show that Europe is not a Christian club and does not reject an Islamic candidate is not rational. And seeing Turkey as a secular exception and natural ally against Islamism thanks to the legacy of Kemal Atatürk is erroneous. Because the new post-Kemalist Turkey, led by Erdoğan and Islamic ruling party AKP, allows and claims back all that which was rejected by Atatürk: the hijab, the Islamic political parties and compulsory religious instruction at school.

Del Valle says that Kemalism was dismantled in the 1950s and 60s with the governments of Adnan Menderes and Süleyman Demirel and became politically dead under Turgut Özal, the architect of the re-Islamization which abolished the article 163 that had prohibited the Islamic parties. A country like Turkey which is ruled by a party stemming from an Islamic movement which has been attaining victory in elections since the beginning of the 90s is not any more a secular and kemalist country. But it is what he calls a "post-Kemalist" state.

The main theory of Del Valle is that Europe and the US have become the main allies who are capable of dismantling the militarist-Kemalist power in Turkey in the name of western democracy. The first goal of AKP is to avenge, after having perfected the de-Kemalization of the country, the affront suffered in 1923 at the time of the abolition of the Caliphate and the Sharia. If Turkey would access the European Union, Europe would have for its immediate neighbors Iran of the Mullahs, Syria – both sponsors of Hezbollah – and Iraq.

Finally, he advocates that the best way to preserve the Kemalist exception and secularism in Turkey would keep Turkey outside Europe and to build what President Nicolas Sarkozy calls a special partnership.

 

The "New Christianophobia"

 

In his essay "The new christianophobia, Why Have Christians Around the World Become Murder Targets?", Alexandre Del Valle explains the Christianity is today the religion most systematically and violently persecuted around the world. The specific nature of the new global Christianophobia consists mainly in its impunity and the silence that surrounds it. Indeed, a new litany of hateful atrocities is stirring up fanaticism in many nations against Christianity, the religion of the hated "westerner white man", in the name of a desire for revenge and the "right" of colonized peoples "humiliated" by the West to be "different." This new teaching of contempt, which amalgamates Christians from all backgrounds with the western "executioner," is impervious to any blame. Totally uninhibited, driven by the global wave of anti-western sentiment and often exotically presented as anti-imperialism, it is the source of countless acts of violence against Christians, killed just because they are Christians, according to Alexandre del Valle (this book will be soon published in the USA and in Brasil).

 

The "Syrian chaos"

 

In "The Syrian Chaos", Alexandre del Valle explains the complexity of the Syrian conflict and describes the origins of the Islamic State (ISIS). He proposes new and pragmatic measures to find peace solutions in Syria and in the Middle East, based on a realistic geopolitical approach that includes all the protagonists of the Syrian civil war and that are involved in the crisis (western countries, Russia, Sunni main actors, Iran, the main political and militar opponents and the Syrian regime itself). Randa Kassis and Alexandre del Valle also alert on the fact that Christians and other non-sunni minorities (alaouites, Druzes, chiits, Yezidis, etc) are victims of a "cultural genocide" that is not only planed by ISIS or Al Qaïda but also, more secretly, by The Muslim Brotherhoods worldwide organization that "stole" the Arab spring revolutions.

This book has been written with a syrian christian-secular activist, Randa Kassis, who denounces from the beginning the mistake of the West that consists in trusting on sunni islamist monarchies and Turkey that support muslim brotherhoods and salafi radical rebels in Syria and plan to get rid of all the minorities (alaoui, christian, chiia and druzes) in Syria in the framework of their Shariatic-totalitarian-theocratical agenda. According to Kassis and Del Valle, radical sunni islamists are all totalitarians in Syria, and not only Al Qaïda syrian branch or ISIS plan to organise a "cultural and religious genocide" of Christians and other non-sunni minorities in the Muslim world, because this aim is the heart of muslim brotherhoods and other so called "moderates salafis" that compose the majority of rebel fighters and political strong opponent sunni anti-Assad groups in Syria. Alexandre del Valle describes the genesis of ISIS and proposes new solutions based on pragmatism and political dialogue to bring peace in Syria and fight efficiently against the islamic totalitarianism and protect the Christian and other non-sunni minorities victims of a "cultural genocide". 

 

The "Western Complex" or "Western guilt" 

 

In "Le Complexe occidental" (The Western Guilt", see bibliography infra), Del Valle explains that the most dangerous threat for the West is not China, Radical Islam or the anti-West Third World or emerging countries, but the "feeling guilty of the "judeo-christian white man". Since the 2010eas, Del Valle promoted a new "psycho-geopolitical" paradigm that was the center of a new political debate between "sovereignists" and "cosmopolitically correctness thinkers": The "western complex", that became the title of his book published in 2013 in France, in 2018 in Netherland, in 2019 in Italy, and in 2020 in Portugal and Brazil. Del Valle explains that the West is the target of a "massive self-desinformation" against its own roots, history, religion and civilization, that leeds to a dangerous self-hatred and "ethno-masochist feeling" and acts as a real objective ally of the radical islamist ennemies of the open societies. He affirms that without the benefit from western unlimited "reversed tolerance", the Enemies of the West would never have been able to penetrate our western judeo-christian rooted democracies and civilization. He alerts that this "western Guilt" or "complex" is a "Massive self-destruction Arm" and that this internal threat based on Guilt can more efficiently destroy step by step our way of life and democraties from insied rather than any extrenal islamist, chinese or other declared geostrategic ennemy.

 

The War of Representations ("W o R")

 

In the other main part of this 600 pages besteller, Del Valle develops his psycho-geopolitical long term theory : The War on Representations". In the framework of the geopolitical method, that analyses the "struggles of powers over disputed territories", and the "antagonism between representations that justify collective choices", he explains that the "war of representations" consists in "manufacturing the consent". It consists in analyzing the "mobilization forces" (ideologies, feelings, visions of the world, beliefs) that motivate people to fight for their side and to accept their leader's decisions. The W o R is a non-violent struggle that justify coercion and sometimes violent decisions. It uses mainly non-military weapons that consists in destroying the enemy without killing him physically but by destroying his legitimacy, by discrediting its image or "representation". 

The "war of representations" does not describe the "real" reasons and causes of conflicts, it does not explain why political leaders take their decision, but it describes the "law of power" and the legitimation's process that help our leaders to justify morally their coercive decision and to influence people’s choices and built their "Power acceptance".

The war on representation consists in deceiving the adversary or competitor, in demoralizing the Enemy. The War of representations can define non-military battles between rival States or business Companies/strategic industries. It describes both a geopolitical or a geoeconomical battle/struggle between States and economical rivals/competitors. The W o R uses psychological, communicational, religious, ideological and other abstracts tools in order to achieve a geopolitical or geoeconomical (often) hidden goal. It uses sophisticated disinformation methods and is obviously part of the Manipulation process ("manufacturing of consent") often used both by Intelligence and Marketing "influential" (often cynical) methods. The W o R aims to crucify the Enemy's/adversary/competitor image, to destroy its representation (image, legitimacy) on the eyes of its own troops, citizens or consumers ("deception strategy"). The W o R are part of a collective manipulation process that consists in building legitimacy and Authority/Power acceptance. We will analyze concrete examples and we will focus on the "DCR process" (Destroying the Competitive Representations), composed by: Discreditation, Guilt and Overturning.

 

The "real ennemy of the West"

 

In his 2017 book, "The real enemies of the West", Alexandre Del Valle reflects on the strategic mistakes of The West since the end of the Cold War, He explains that an Enemy is an entity that truly threatens our short- and long-term survival and vital interests -- not one that simply does not share our concept of democracy and human rights. For this reason, he says that the "mistake made by Western societies is viewing only Islamic terrorist groups as enemies and targeting them in a vacuum. Equally, if not more, important to combat are those Islamist movements that condemn terrorism but spread their ideology "peacefully" in our countries". That fore, Defining post-Soviet Russia as the main enemy of the West, while considering the Sunni Islamic monarchies of the Middle East and neo-Ottoman-Islamist Turkey as allies or friends, is a dangerous geopolitical mistake. The primary interest of the West and the main mission of NATO should not consist in demonizing regimes it does not like, such as Putin's authoritarian kleptocracy or other non-democratic states that do not pose a direct military threat. Rather, it is to safeguard our land, sea, airspace and populations. In conclusion, he states that "before launching military campaigns on behalf of human rights, we in the West should first invest in strengthening our values at home, and encourage our Muslim minorities to adopt those values, rather than let them fall into the hands of radical Islamist organizations. The West must stop demonizing its own Judeo-Christian-European identity and rid itself of multiculturalist extremism. He often refers to Karl Popper, and mentions The Open Society and Its Enemies, writing that "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Like he wroted in his previous books, he advises to western leaders to stop demonizing its own Judeo-Christian-European identity and rid itself of multiculturalist extremism, and he proposes a "Pan-Western" or "alter-Western" strategy that should be created to enhance and cement the U.S.-Old Europe bond, and to encourage Russia to be a part of it. It is time to focus on the actual enemy -- the one on our doorstep placing our societies in its crosshairs.

 

The misunderstanding between Russia and The West

 

Since the 2000eas, Russia and United States seem more enemies than during the end of the Cold war. The roots and responsibilities of this “strategical misunderstanding" between Russia and the US and the West” are shared by both sides. In 2003, President Vladimir Poutine's decision to stop the post-Cold war pro-western strategy (Boris Eltsine's reset with NATO) was based on the following observations: during the 1990eas and the 2000eas, the US and its NATO allies dismantled the Serbian/Yugoslav States in order to prevent the Russians to access the Mediterranean Sea and to reduce their influence in the Balkans. According to Mr. Poutine, in Irak, during the 1990 and 2003 Anglo-American wars against pro-Russian Saddam Hussein's Regime,  and in Ukraine and Georgia during the famous "colored revolutions" (2004-2014), the USA and the NATO European States extended western NATO's "neo-imperialism/domination" in the Middle East and in former Soviet Eastern Europe to the detriment of Russian interests. That for, the US/NATO countries supported directly anti-Russian and pro-Western in Bosnia-Kosovo (against Serbia), Chechenia, Georgia, Ukraine (against Moscow). Former George Bush US president (Sr and Jr) and Barak Obama’s administrations support to revolutionary radical anti-Russian forces in the "Russian close neighboring" and US/UE proposal of bringing Croatia, Baltic countries and other former USSR member states like Ukraine into the NATO (aiming to get rid of Russian military base in Crimea) provocated Poutine's reaction to invade Crimea. According to Russia, the Western countries (NATO/EU) could have avoided the present Russian-western crisis if they had respected Poutine’s claim to maintain Georgia and Ukraine as "neutral" geostrategic zones. The American-NATO’s strategic support of the enemies of Russia and the extension of NATO in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Caucasus (that Moscow considers as Russian influential zones) were perceived by Moscow as a "casus belli". according to M. Poutine, this hostile US "neo-containment" strategy against post-Soviet Russia since the 2000eas "proves" that the US will never abandon their anti-Russian strategy and that the only alternative of Russia to resist to the US/NATO hegemony is to build an "anti-western Axis".

 

Reconciliation with Russia and new definition of the West rooted in its civilizational Judeo-Christian values 

 

Alexandre del Valle affirms that the West should "build a New Pan-West organization and Security body" which would gather more strongly the USA and old Europe, trying to convince Russia to join it instead of supporting anti-western coalitions led by ChinaIran or Venezuela. Of course, this aim is not easy to reach, because the misunderstandings and crisis between both sides have been constantly increasing for decades, above all since Iraq war in 2003 and Ukraine revolution (that became an horrible civil war), and the so called “Arab Spring” and Syrian Islamic revolution, also supported by the West and that quickly became a “radical islamist winter”…

Though it does seem to be “moral” (but geopolitics and strategy have nothing to see with morals or feeling), it means that Syrian-Bachar al-Assad anti-islamist regime must not be seen as our enemy (of course it’s not a friend either!), but it faces the same major enemies (Al-Qaida, ISIS, radical other islamist groups supported by Qatar, Turkey, Muslim Brotherhoods and Saudi Arabia), as well as Poutine’s neo-orthodox-tsarist Russia that fight since Afghanistan war those islamist groups. I just recall here that in 1999, when Poutine first came to power, I proposed to adapt NATO and Western strategy to the growing reality and new global Threat by attacking Taliban’s Afghanistan that hosted Ben Laden. Strangely, Washington refuses this “pan-West” alliance. We still pay now the high price of this refusal due to old fashion Cold War paradigm. Let’s remember that prof Samuel Huntington wanted to replace it by the clash of civilizations paradigm, but he was crucified because this civilizational vision did not comply with Politically correct-multiculturalist-globalist ideology... 

From this point of view, Russia should be considered as the flagship of the Orthodox world, and a pivotal world power, and not anymore as an enemy. Of course, Russia is not perfect, its regime must be criticized and should be improved upon. However, the Russian regime is more a problem for its people than for the West. And the definition of an enemy must never be based in morals and ideology but on vital interests and survival. 

According to Del Valle, America should better understand that it must fight the same enemy as Russia, Israel, France, Belgium: radical islam and China major threats. To put Russia and Belarus into the "anti-Western" camp was a major error, one that Westerners could ultimately regret. All of these post-soviet or western European-Judeo-Christian rooted countries are in fact linked by history, culture, religion, philosophical-political values and must gather against the same radical Islamist enemy. State’s interests can of course be antagonists in some fields, and it’s the case between Russia and the USA, but also between European Union and its American ally. But despite our differences, we can gather over our common interests and common threats instead of being divided and of wasting energy in European-American non-useful ideological and strategic disputes due to the past. 

The best two examples of realistic cooperation between States with divergent diplomatic and ideological visions are offered by the geopolitical collaboration between Israel and Russia and between India and Israel against a common jihadist-terrorist Sunni enemy. And the fact that Russia and Russia are close allies of Iran and that Moscow is a close ally of the Syrian-Assad regimes does not prevent Israel to maintain good relations with Moscow and vice-versa, on behalf of necessity and Realpolitik.  

The West should understand that the coming multipolar world is not anymore shaped by ideological representations but by geopolitical realism and civilizational survive. He should understand that our crusades-wars in the Middle East and our interference in the affairs of others in the name of the defense of “human rights” have not contributed to weaken or defeat our real radical islamist enemies. It has just contributed to increase that threat, while many non-western States see our democratic values and human Rights as a pretext of a new cynical and imperialist agenda. It’s time to focus first on our real enemies who plan to attack us, and to defend our democratic values and civilization in our western backyard instead of wasting energy by intervening in the affairs of those who reject our way of life but don’t attack us. Idealism sounds nice but led to many wars, while realism sounds cynical but can help to prevent other geostrategic disasters...

 

In favor of "a Multipolar world"

 

Anyway, builting such an "PanWest" does not mean extending NATO and following the "counter-productive" neo-imperialism that has characterized the US foreign policy for decades during and above all after the Cold War Paradigm (military stupid US-western interventions in Serbia-Yugoslavia; Irak, Libya, etc). According to Del Valle, the present "multipolarization process" of the world means the end of the US-Western-atlantic "unipolarism". Westernism, americanism and « Eurocentrism » is not possible anymore and must be replaced by a "sovereignist" panwest isolationist strategy that consists in stopping intervening abroad or expanding our universalist values ouside but defending strongly those western values in our lands, by stopping anti-western islamic massive immigration and collaborating more peacefully with Russia and India against China and the Islamic Global threat. Del Valle explains that, thought the United States is still the strongest country in the World and "THE Hyperpower", new outsiders, competitors or enemies such as China, Russia, India, Turkey, etc, don't accept anymore to submit to the US-Western Global domination and/or reject western dominating Values and political liberal-universalist system. 

Multipolarity means also the « PIVOT » toward Asia and Pacific ocean, that are the fastest growing economies and outsiders States. Since  the 1980eas: Japan, and « Tigers », and « Asian dragons », and the China and India. This coming multipolar world is seen by the US as a serious threat: it's why the American Hyperpower must prevent the new « anti-hegemonic alliances" promoted by China, Russia, Iran and others. Since the 2000eas, emerging and (re)emerging countries are expanding their regional leadership and (re)creating their non-Aligned or anti-hegemonic own "poles" in their regional neighborhood. After the cold war, the world seemed have only one very strong pole, with the United States being the dominant system during this given period. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western countries (NATO member-States) failed to reset a new partnership and positive cooperation with post-Soviet Russia, steel defined as the "main enemy of the West". During the first post-Cold War period (1990-1999), western military interventions in former Yugoslavia or in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and Syria) have led to increase radical Islam, terrorism and anti-Western strong reactions. Those military American-western interventions launched in the name of defending" democracy or human rights" were perceived by many non-western islamic States but also by Russia and China as "neo-imperialist campaigns" under the "hypocrite pretext" to support democracy and human rights. 

 

"The Strategy of Intimidation": from jihadist terrorism to "islamically correctness"

 

This sentence was also the title of one recent Del Valle's book, in witch he explains his vision of the "Psychology of Radical Islamism" based on ideological, moral and physical "intimidation". Del Valle explains that "the more one kills in the name of Allah, the more the West fights the so-called 'Islamophobia', and the more the "guilty westerners" psychologically weakened by the Politically and the "Islamically correctness" talk well about the "real" and "good" Islam so they do not 'amalgamate' and "prove" they are not "racists" or "islamophobes". Del Valle shows that "no matters if ISIS lost some lands in Syria or in Irak, the REAL "jihadist land" is the "Sharia Mind". The secret of jihadist strategy consists not in "killing for killing", but in making a worldwide huge and free mediatic campaign that leads the "Unbelievers" to speak about islam "in good" as well as "in bad"... The theorists of jihadist Islamism ("head cutters") or political ("language cutters") are neither isolated nor unbalanced individuals, but intellectuals whose influence is immense throughout the world. Terrorism is only the armed wing, while the fear it inspires is perpetuated by an "Islamically correct" discourse. The physical violence of the jihadists produces an astonishment and an intimidation which in fact greatly benefits the proponents of more "institutional" Islamism. They claim that "jihadism has nothing to do with Islam" while they drink from the same totalitarian sources. Hence the subtitle of the essay: "from jihadist terrorism to Islamically correct", two complementary forms of intimidation. This expression, which Del Valle first used in an article in Figaro Magazine in 1999 at the same time as that of "Islamist totalitarianism", shows that the more one kills in the name of Islam, the more the Westerners fight against it. Islamophobia by claiming that "real Islam" is peaceful. Paradoxically, therefore, Islamically correct is not just a variation of xenophilia, the Islamic version of "politically correct", but the result of physical and psychological intimidation that pushes people to give in before those who are ready to die. for their fanatic cause. Islamically correct is the result of physical and psychological intimidation which pushes us to give in to fanaticism.

 

The "Islamically correct" 

 

According to Del Valle, this "Islamically correct" has become the epicenter of the culture of excuse, the most ripe fruit of the "Western complex". Such capitulation by Westerners in the face of the strategy of conquering neo-conquering Islamist poles is all the more perverse since it is presented as a pledge of anti-racism. To put it another way, the Islamically correct "language cutters" (those who silence the so-called "Islamophobes" who dare to criticize Islam and Islamism) is reinforced by the fear aroused by the "head cutters" (The jihadists, who very persuasively recall how dangerous it is to criticize Islam). By thus mixing questions of immigration, the refugee crisis or "racism" with that of Islamist totalitarianism, by equating criticism of Islam with hatred towards Muslims, institutional Islamists and their far-left allies have managed to pass any criticism of Islam and any denunciation of Islamism as racism towards Muslim immigrants and Muslim civilization.

Islamic Terrorism is therefore assimilable for Del Valle to a “psychological war". Yet its objective, like that of political global Islamism in general, violent or non-violent, is to make the Sharia order reign everywhere, to reconquer all the countries that were once Muslim (Balkans, Spain, Sicily, Portugal, India, Israel, etc.), which he wants to eventually bring together in a caliphate, in order to Islamize the entire planet. But knowing that many countries are militarily stronger than them, the Islamists must first disarm the West by banning all criticism of Islam under the guise of fighting Islamophobia. To remove obstacles on their paths of subversive conquest, the poles of world Islamism distill the idea that any criticism of Islam would be an attack on Muslims. This “paranoization” of Muslims via the idea that “disbelieving societies” would persecute them prepares for the possible secession of a large part of the Muslim communities of our countries, which jihadists as well as “moderate Islamists” encourage to “disassimilate”.

 

Muslim Brotherhoods and Erdogan's new neo-ottoman Islamist Turkey: the "Trojan horse of “separatism”

 

In another book, published with french-iranian Grand Reporter Emmanuel Razavi, "The Project," Alexandre del Valle explains “the most successful model” of these Islamist currents is embodied by the Justice and Development Party of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a great protector of the Muslim Brotherhood and nostalgic for the Ottoman Caliphate. Del Valle and Razavi claim, with supporting evidence, that the Muslim Brothers, protected and funded by Qatar and Turkey, “have openly established themselves in Europe, France and everywhere in Western societies, of which they are, however, the worst civilizational enemies.” In some cases, they receive public subsidies. They concluded that this incoherence is because the Muslim Brothers passed themselves off as “moderate Islamists” and because the French state chose to capitulate to them and even enter into covert deals with these Islamists, whom it is claiming to fight today.

According to Del Valle and Razavi, "Far from having remained a simple pyramidal organization, the "Society" of the Ikhwan (muslim brotherhoods) has become a heterogeneous movement whose cohesion is ensured more by the ideological affinities of its members, than by the Egyptian leadership. At the global level there is no longer a really hierarchical and centralized structure with an obedient summit and base. Rather, we are dealing with a horizontal and decentralized organization. Thus, organizations linked to the Brothers enjoy a very large autonomy, while following the line of a flexible world direction whose European variations alone include between 300 and 350 centers. This explains why prominent members of brotherhoods claim that they are not members of The Brotherhood. Half a lie ... To achieve their goals, the ideologues of The Ikhwan have developed a real expansion strategy "in stages" which was revealed in 1992 when the Egyptian police learned of a secret plan, during a search of a member's home.

This strategic manual, called "Tamkine", which will be confirmed later by the famous "Project" seized from Youssef Nada in Switzerland (see Chapter II), has as its ultimate goal to take power and achieve Hakimiyya everywhere. The three essential stages of the plan are: 1 / disseminate their totalitarian vision of Islam under the guise of official Islam and respect for religion; 2 / train-select the key individuals who must transmit the brotherly concept wherever they act, through testimony and entrism; 3 / perfect the final phase of taking political power once the society has been acquired and the elites prepared. The modus operandi consists in taking control of the supreme power by the constitution of a vast decentralized network, then the creation of multiple compartmentalized sections which mesh all the society, then by infiltration and entrism in education, orders doctors, lawyers, banks and financial institutions, unions, hospitals, courts, and political and media parties (such as Al-Jazeera).

The priority, which the Italian communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci (renowned for the priority given to entrism and cultural combat) would not have denied, is therefore the training of young people and future elites. The strength of the Brothers is indeed to operate anywhere and at all levels of society, in the fields of charity, sports, media, politics or education. Wherever they settle, their first concern is to establish schools, clinics, sports clubs, and to offer microcredit without riba (interest) to Muslims who adhere to their ideological principles, which have been defined by Hassan al -Banna and perfected by her son-in-law, Saïd Ramadan. Their leitmotif is: "Knowledge is power". And knowledge comes through entrism in small schools, high schools, universities and the media. The final access to power logically passes through pragmatic alliances with more classic political parties and the subversion of democratic values, at local, municipal, regional, national and even outside Muslim countries. In this new “evolving” strategic configuration of the Ikhwan, three men have played a fundamental role in recent years in modifying the operational and organizational schema of The Brotherhood, connecting it more to the Islamist realities of the 21st century. Machiavellian intellectuals adept at using social networks and the media, cyber-Jihad and economic guerrilla warfare on the Internet, this trio, supported by Turkey and Qatar, theorized the new global strategy of conquering the Arab-Muslim world and of Europe by the Brothers as well as the cartography of the organization.

It is made up of the Qatari Jassim Sultan, the late Saudi Jamal Khashoggi and the naturalized British Palestinian Azzam Tamimi, three central figures in the new strategic configuration of the Brothers at regional and world level. Khashoggi, Jassim Sultan and Azzam Tamimi, which we will come back to in detail later, belonged to this new generation of "Islamist-Progressives 2.0", that is to say the most transnational and revolutionary movement in the "democratic" sense of the term of Sunni Islamism, and sponsored by Qatar and Turkey d 'Erdogan. A vision of political Islam resolutely opposed to that of the hereditary pro-Western Gulf monarchies which no longer privileges the jihadist-warlike path inaugurated by Saiyyd Qutb, but that, democratic, entrist, digital, politico-democratic and economic, "2.0 "Launched on a large scale for the first time during the Arab Spring, a local variant of the famous" color revolutions "funded in the 2000s by the United States and Georges Soros' NGOs in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere to weaken interests Russians in Eurasia. For these three thinkers, who however, like Khashoggi and Tamimi, supported or experienced warlike jihad closely, the ultimate objective of the Brothers (Universal Caliphate) remains the same as that of the founding fathers Al-Banna or Qutb, but it can only be achieved on the condition that they asymmetrically overthrow all of the dictatorial or secularized Arab dictatorial regimes, whether Islamic but rival Saudi Arabia (in the race for Islamic leadership), Egypt hated by Abdel Fatah Al-Sissi, or even Syria by the Assad-Alawite clan and the anti-Islamic Baath party honored. Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood has therefore mutated in many ways under the influence and activism of these new theorists, much less attached to the original Egyptian structure and its pyramid system than their predecessors. They are convinced that their success depends on their involvement in the business world, the media, in politics, NGOs, associations.

They act in a victimitarian discourse, positioning themselves as “victims of Islamophobia”, placing it on the same level as anti-Semitism, by concealing the admiration of their founding fathers for Nazism and the fact that the Brotherhood always been Judeophobic.

liste des ouvrages 

 

2019 : Le Projet La stratégie de conquête et d'infiltration des frères musulmans en France et dans le monde. Co-écrit avec Emmanuel Razavi (Disponible sur la FNAC)

 

2018 : La Stratégie de l'Intimidation : Du terrorisme djihadiste à l'islamiquement correct (Disponible site éditeur)

2016 : Les Vrais Ennemis de l'Occident : Du rejet de la Russie à l'islamisation des sociétés ouvertes (Disponible sur Amazon)

2016 : Comprendre le Chaos syrien: Des révolutions arabes au jihad mondial (Disponible sur Amazon)

2015 : Le Chaos Syrien, printemps arabes et minorités face à l'islamisme (Disponible sur Amazon)

2014 : Le complexe occidental - Petit traité de déculpabilisation

(Disponible sur Amazon)

2011 : Pourquoi on tue des chrétiens dans le monde aujourd'hui ? - la nouvelle christianophobie (Disponible sur Amazon)

2009 : I Rossi Neri, Verdi: la convergenza degli Estremi opposti, (préface de Magdi Allam) (Disponibile sul Amazon)

2009 : Perché la Turchia non può entrare nell'Unione europea, (préface de Roberto de Mattei) (Disponibilie sul Amazon)

2005 : Frères musulmans. Dans l'ombre d'Al Qaeda,  préface d'Emmanuel Razavi (Disponible sur Amazon)

2005 : Le Dilemme turc, ou les vrais enjeux de la candidature d'Ankara avec Emmanuel Razavi (Disponible sur Amazon)

2004 : La Turquie dans l'Europe, un cheval de Troie islamiste ?

(Disponible sur Amazon)

2002 : Le Totalitarisme islamiste à l'assaut des démocraties.

(Disponible sur Amazon)

2001 : Guerres contre l'Europe : Bosnie, Kosovo, Tchétchénie.

(Disponible sur Amazon)

2000 : Quel avenir pour les Balkans après la guerre du Kosovo?

1999 : Une idée certaine de la France (dir. Alain Griotteray) (Disponible sur Amazon)

1997 : Islamisme et États-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe

(Disponible sur Amazon)