The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons.
By Daniel Greenfield l September 15, 2012
The past week has shown us what a Post-American world looks like and it isn’t a batch of treaties that lead to men and women from around the world meeting to decide how to feed the hungry, clothed the naked and take everyone’s guns away to banish violence from the world. It’s mobs of violent savages ransacking embassies while their suited brethren use it to explain to our decadent leaders that the only way we will have peace is if we let them decide what sections of the Bill of Rights we get to keep.
Forget the UN, the Post-American order isn’t a blue flag, it’s a black flag with Mohammed on it. There are far more people in the world who believe in a world order based on the violent ravings of a 7th Century madman than the number of people who believe in a world order based on 19th Century European wishful thinking. And it helps that the supporters of 7th Century violence over 19th Century internationalism are far more willing to use murderous violence to get their way. The burning embassies and authorities scurrying to intimidate the Mohammed filmmaker into making some kind of apology or going to jail, as their British predecessors bullied Salman Rushdie into doing, reveal the naked order of the new world. It isn’t a place of treaties or laws, but of naked force and we will not be the ones doing the forcing.
In the new world order we will cower behind our televisions while the global mob, composed of whoever has the most surviving kids living on international handouts, will tell us what laws they want us to live under. And those will not be tolerant laws, they will not protect women or gays, let alone minority religions, they will be the laws of the violent majority, not that of the Christians or Buddhists, or the tinier numbers of Jews or Atheists, they will be the laws of Islam, because Muslims are willing to do what they aren’t, go out into the streets and kill to establish those laws.
Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.
And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece. When our enlightened leaders lecture us on offending Muslims, they are acting as the interpreters for bearded thugs who believe that Jinns are around every corner, that angels are afraid of cats and that women are inferior creatures because Mohammed went down to hell and found it full of women.
Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours, are. The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons. Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.
Leftist Anti-Americanism has revealed itself to be Post-Americanism and Post-Americanism is nothing more than savages making laws by burning and killing things. And our Anti-American and Post-American elites had better start explaining to us why being governed by Salafi savages is a moral improvement over Americanism and they had better do a good job with that explanation because the American people are watching.
Laws are given by the conquerors to the conquered and the conquerors today are not the European colonialists, but a new wave of Muslim colonialists spreading across the world. The failure of the European chattering classes to deal with this simple reality, rather than celebrating the local version of that colonialism as cultural enrichment, while condemning any criticism of it as racism, is a further sign of their irrelevance and complete incapacity for dealing with any crisis more significant than a canape shortage at their latest book signing party.
Having ignored the crisis for as long as possible, they are now discussing on what terms the raiders should be able to impose their laws on us, while bellowing at us that any notion of Sharia law being imposed on us is a fantasy of racist extremists, even as they cower when the actual racist extremists tell them they want Sharia law or they will go on bombing, burning and killing. And there is still not even the faintest twinge of an honest discussion of this subject in any official forum, even as officials arrest men and women for the crime that in most Muslim countries is honestly known as blasphemy.
We can now see what kind of glorious world the abandonment of nationhood and national laws is getting us. It isn’t a John Lennon song, it’s a long screaming guitar solo, a wretched tormented yell of the savage set loose to kill in the night. It isn’t a peace flag, it’s the black flag of Islam scrawled with the supremacy of its prophet and its deity on every surface. It isn’t a system that makes life better, but one that reverts to the savage order of those with the most power making the laws for all.
And that is what this is really about. Americanism guarantees rights to all Americans. It even guarantees rights to many non-Americans, and it uses force to protect those rights. Anti-Americanism, however, introduces us to Post-American Internationalism, which on paper guarantees so many rights that you can never remember them all, but that really only has one right, the right of those with the largest and most violent single group to impose their will on everyone else.
That is what Muslims have been doing consistently at the United Nations ever since its membership was opened up. That is why Israel is so consistently reviled and despised at the hands of a Muslim alliance and its foreign enablers. But as the alliance has grown and gotten stronger, its appetites are no longer limited to the Jewish State. Any country that defends itself against Muslim violence, from the United States to Russia and China, from the Philippines to Burma, India and Thailand, will sooner or later be gnawed on by the hungry savages looking to put more infidels under their boot.
Now we have come to the acid test of internationalism. The great naked emperor moment that will determine whether we will go on down the ladder to the 7th Century or climb back up to the light of a better future.
The question is childishly absurdly simple. Will we allow Muslim mobs to determine the content of our Bill of Rights? Will we decide that as Americans, we have a right to freedom of speech, without considering the “global opinion” of a band of savages who want us to bow down to their stone god and its views on women, freedom and blasphemy, or will we decide that as Post-Americans we must consider the opinions of the “international community” and accept that freedom of speech is no longer feasible in a connected world?
The spokesmen for the latter obscenity have already crawled out of their holes to bray at us about giving consideration for the feelings of others. Obama, Clinton and all their diplomatic stooges have spent so much time talking about our consideration for religion that they might as well have taken off their shoes and planted their noses into the nearest smelly carpet.
But suppose for a moment that we don’t want to be considerate, suppose that we want to support the peculiar institution of allowing as many offensive opinions as can be found in a country of a few hundred million to proliferate. And suppose further that we believe that every person has the right to bray those opinions as he pleases, and that such a society of discordant arguments, where everyone is entitled to be right or wrong, ignorant or intelligent, bigoted or tolerant, crazy or sane, good or evil, without ever being sure which is which because it’s the process of yelling at each other that allows us to discover this, is actually the best society, then we are being jingoistic American exceptionalists.
Americanism is a nation of people arguing with each other, without killing each other, and Post-Americanism, as we have just witnessed, is the people who are willing to kill winning the argument by default. Anti-Americanism is the view that the people who kill each other should win the argument because the fact that they don’t have enough jet planes to kill us with proves they’re not part of the military-industrial complex.
That is our choice. We can choose to be ruled by savages brandishing weapons or by the Bill of Rights. But let’s not pretend that the rule of Obama or Ban Ki-moon is anything more than the rule of savages by proxy. It doesn’t much matter whether the savages are here pointing a gun at our heads or if Obama or some civil rights commission is doing their dirty work for them; our choice is clear. We can either be ruled by our laws or by the Koran.
Internationalism is the Koran wrapped in a blue flag and a billion words of empty human rights guarantees that mean nothing. Only nations ruled by free people can guarantee rights and anyone who undermines them, who promotes an Anti-American or Post-American agenda, is promoting the law of the Koran over the law of individual liberty.
The left has a choice to make. They can either choose Americanism or the Koran, and for the most part they have made their choice. And we need to make ours. This is not a debate over policies, but over basic freedoms. This is not a conflict over what percent of taxes we will be paying, but whether we will have even the most basic civil rights left by the time that the international order of savages and murderers, and their transnational representatives, are done with us.
Laws are made by force, not by international consensus. The Salafis and their internationalist appeasers have reminded us of that. That force can be the force of free people making laws for themselves or the force of violent outsiders imposing laws on people who are unable to resist them.
Americanism is not there to “communicate” or “reach out” to the savages to explain how much we respect their religion and how much we disavow anything that offends their tender sensitivities. It is there to tell them that our laws are inviolable and not open for negotiations and that if they attack us, then they will pay the price. Americanism is there to say that if we are attacked, our first priority will not be to win the hearts and minds of a global community, but to inflict ruthless devastation on our attackers without regard for the collateral damage among those nations that harbor them, and that we will do this while minimizing the risk to our own lives, because nations are obligated and mandated to place a higher value on the lives of their citizens than on those of their enemies.
A nation has only those laws and freedoms that it is willing to defend. And if we lose the nation, then we will not have sold it for a better international order, but for the violent whims of the Anti-American savages of the Post-American world.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City-based writer and freelance commentator with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. Mr. Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He maintains a blog and is a contributor to