Occupy est-il un complot islamiste ?

Occupy est-il un complot islamiste ?

Philip Giraldi, ancien officier de la CIA qui a gagné les rangs de la dissidence, expose, ce 1er décembre 2011, sur Antiwar.com, la théorie qui s’est développée dans la droite de la droite républicaine et, surtout et principalement, sinon fougueusement et hystériquement, dans les milieux néoconservateurs traditionnels. Il s’agit de l’interprétation du mouvement Occupy, à partir d’Occupy Wall Street, désormais considéré comme un “complot islamiste” (ou “islamofasciste”, dirait BHL pour faire plus français et bien informé) ; bien entendu, on n’oublie pas les habituelles notes de bas de page de l’antisémitisme, de la haine d’Israël pressé de toutes parts par la vilenie du monde qui l’oppresse… Bref, une théorie de plus, un complot de plus, mais avec toute la vista et le sérieux qui caractérisent ces milieux.

…L’avantage de la chose étant qu’avec les neocons, espèce particulièrement accrocheuse lorsqu’elle tient une thèse suffisamment délirante, nous sommes assurés d’entendre parler et parler encore d’Occupy, et de voir son importance sans cesse mise en évidence, sinon largement grossie et exagérée. C’est une façon de garder le mouvement en pleine vigueur, a contrario dirait-on, au moment où il est en train de se redéfinir et de s’adapter aux conditions nouvelles créées par l’éviction de nombre de groups qui occupaient des lieux publics dans les grandes villes. On peut, on doit toujours compter sur les neocons pour un coup de main.

«…In the United States, because many of the activists describe themselves as progressive or liberal, the movement is increasingly reviled by conservative pundits as “un-American,” even though its objectives are frequently identical to those of the tea parties on the political right. There was, indeed, initially some confusion on how exactly to describe the developing threat. Leading neoconservative Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post initially saw a radical chic rebellion as the “Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America.” He castigated the “indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees [who] have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires.”

»But then the perception changed when the protesters did not go away and grew in number, joined by a handful of labor unions, challenging the status quo more directly. The demonstrators were described as “attacking” the police, and media accounts were replete with the familiar slogans of the Vietnam War, that the protesters are dirty, libidinous, and Communist-inspired. Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh called them “lousy hippies, thieves, rapists, purse snatchers, and muggers.” Glenn Beck, until recently a fixture on Fox television, described them as “lice-infested” misfits spreading disease, committing murders and rapes, and engaging in public defecation and fornication.

»But a new formulation has been creeping into the invective. Because the attacks were on Wall Street, the movement was initially framed by some critics as anti-Semitic because of the large number of Jews who work in the financial services industry. Beck sees something even more insidious: Islamic radicalism that is aiming to overthrow the government of the United States. In his odd mixture of ostentatious religiosity and gutter politics, he describes how God speaks to us, noting, however, that the God who advises going around blowing things up is likely the “God of the Arab Spring.” In other words, for some so-called conservative commentators, an essential element that can be used to marginalize the protest movement is to label it Islamic.

»Islamophobia is not exactly new, but it attained a greater popularity in the wake of 9/11. Everyone needs someone to blame when terrible events take place, and Islam, which is culturally alien to most Americans, is a convenient scapegoat, leading to campaigns vilifying Shariah law and raising suspicions about Muslims in general. It is perhaps no coincidence that the woman who is possibly the most vocal anti-Muslim in the United States, Pamela Geller, has been leading the charge linking anti-Semitism to the OWS movement. One Geller headline screams “Muslim Groups Back Occupy Wall Street Protesters.” Geller is successful in finding anti-Semitism and insidious Islamic influence in many places, enabled in her task by her conflation of anti-Israel with anti-Semitic. In her mind and those of her supporters, the two are essentially the same… […]

»David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose stated mission is to “combat the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values in a time of terror,” calls the Occupy supporters “morons” and “idiots.” Robert Spencer, who runs the website Jihad Watch, objected recently to a reality show depicting Muslim families in America by demanding that it include terrorists. He writes that “The Leftist/jihadist alliance has been on abundant display during the Occupy protests.” So the unanimity on the part of many pundits and politicians in condemning the Occupy Wall Street movement can be explained in terms of their other interests. Damaging President Obama is a high priority, but Occupiers’ explicit or implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy also challenges the Israel-centric view of American national security, and the demands that foreign aid be eliminated or cut pose a rather more direct challenge, as Israel is a major recipient of such assistance. And the merest hint that American Muslims might be joining in the protests or sympathetic to them provides the necessary ammunition to discredit the rest of the message. As is so often the case in American politics, the punditry’s hostile response to Occupy Wall Street is really largely about Israel.»

dedefensa.org