The Free World

posted by Lars Møller at American Thinker 

Nothing in the balance of power has really changed since World War I. The West needs America for its survival as the free world. However, America for her part needs a leader dedicated to the cause of freedom, and prepared to take on the leadership of the West. Given what is at stake, isolationism is not an option.

Politically, the European countries are divided, and individually too weak to take over responsibility from America. Although a giant with 447,007,596 citizens — compared to the 331,900,000 of the United States (both 2021 figures) — the European Union has rarely been able to formulate a common position on urgent foreign affairs, let alone enforce it with self-confidence and determination in economic-military terms. A division based on historical disagreements, rancor, and envy remains noticeable despite the continued efforts of Brussels bureaucrats at erasure of national identities and “harmonization.”

In the face of imminent threats from outside, the European peoples show poor judgment and continue to rival their neighbors, behaving much like the self-centered city-states of ancient Greece when challenged by the Achaemenid Empire. As a result, salvation in the hour of need invariably depends on the Land of the Free. Nobody else could fill the void in her absence. The great powers of the post-war period have ceased to exist. Thus, France and Britain, engulfed by ethnic warfare in their cities, institutional collapse, and cultural self-denial, are long gone as world leaders.

The epitome of Gallic self-conceit, Emmanuel Macron, who famously described NATO as “braindead” in 2019, later tried his hand at mediation between Russia and Ukraine. For some time to come, TV viewers around the world are unlikely to forget his negotiations (or whatever it was that took place) with the Russian president across an immeasurably long conference table in the Kremlin. In the equally pompous and cynical fashion of his predecessors, he aspired to a historic role in world politics and subsequently made an effort to ingratiate himself with the Chinese president. Like Charles de Gaulle, another narcissist, he distanced himself from America, because it suited his immediate ambitions, and let it be understood that neither France nor the other countries in the West (as if he were entitled to speak for them) were indebted to America; in his words, they were not “vassals.” However, neither the Chinese president nor his ambassador in Paris found it worthwhile to reward his sell-out. Instead, they gave him a lecture in ice-cold realpolitik.

Boris Johnson appeared energetic and passionate for as long as circumstances allowed him to remain in the post of British prime minister. As a breath of fresh air and with an irresistible confidence, he won the hearts of the Britons. Accustomed to hand-wringing and vacillating, not to say “wimpish” leaders since Margaret Thatcher’s resignation, they enjoyed the experience of an irrepressible optimist. Time would show that they were woefully mistaken about his statesmanship. He was indeed the man who “got Brexit done,” bursting with slogans and gimmicks, but without having grasped, let alone properly prepared for, the economic consequences. Posterity will also remember him for his unwavering support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion, regularly posing for photography in the war-empty streets of Kyiv. Though witty, he was ultimately a clown — a buffoon. And since his days as a newspaperman, he had frankly shown a worrying disdain for the truth.

From a conservative point of view, both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak became synonymous with wasted opportunities. Great Britain used to be a stronghold of civilization whenever continental Europe fell victim to revolutionary psychoses, overthrew the social order, and resorted to indiscriminate murders against the backdrop of general anarchy. Something of critical importance to the nation’s self-understanding and will to endure has obviously been broken. An ominous sign of this development is the surrender of power over public space to triumphant enemies of civilization. In a general atmosphere of moral confusion and doom, (a) parliamentarians give up their seats due to personal threats (after the assassination of Sir David Amess), (b) judges hesitate to judge according to the laws for fear of after-hours reprisals, and (c) outnumbered police forces on the streets try to befriend rioters by acting as security guards at their marches, ordering people, whose visible identity might incite violence, to stay away. Obviously, the cultural disease cuts across the division of power. (If Brexit were ever meant to mark a break with Britain’s rampant immigration since 1997, a piece of — irreversible — social engineering on part of the Labor government, those in power, i.e. the Tories, subsequently failed to deliver on the promise to the people.)

George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, a man dwarfed by his Republican predecessors, expedited the political decline of the West. As fate would have it, America suffered its deadliest attack since Pearl Harbor on his watch. Unlike his father, who was a distinguished war hero, though peculiarly absent-minded and indecisive towards the end of his administration, he himself was nothing but a privileged career politician, enjoying his connections, and escaping military service abroad during the Vietnam War. Addressing his nation from a New York mosque after 9/11, Bush famously exclaimed the following: “Islam is peace.” Those words, massively contradicted by reality before and after, live in infamy.

Bush was in a frenzy, lacking an independent overview of the situation and proper guidance. His successor, Barack H. Obama, a lanky charmer with notorious speaking gifts, subtly promoted ethnic identity awareness and took America even closer to the abyss. So self-confident was he that he imagined he could appease Third World tyrants by expressing self-reproach on behalf of America. In the end, he failed his moral responsibility to the oppressed of the world, including gassed civilians and rebels in the Syrian civil war. During his tenure, Christianity lost ground to a branch of moral relativism that encouraged the absurdities of identity politics at home and signaled abroad that America renounced any monopoly on the truth and therefore any right to interfere in the conflicts of other nations.

Then along came Donald J. Trump. An avowed critic of the Washington “swamp,” he won support from Americans because he had the guts to address the problems pointed out by others in a straightforward, intrepid fashion. Apparently, he perceived the long-term demographic — and electoral — implications of the migrant invasion from Mexico. Defying lawsuits and ridicule, he therefore made the decision to build a wall across America on the southern border. His successor, Joseph R. Biden Jr., reversed his immigration policies and invited millions of foreigners into the United States.

It may be that Biden — similar to Lyndon B. Johnson and other Democrat strategists — expects to redeem the electoral dividend sometime in the future. However, the guarantee of Democrat election victories comes at a high cost. By allowing millions of Third-World migrants to invade the country, leading to formidable changes in American demographics, the Democrats are changing the face of America forever. With the breakdown of ethnic stability, the institutions of society, including democracy itself, are at risk of corruption. It is ultimately about deeply rooted traditions, social cohesion, and genuine loyalty to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The delicate balance that has prevailed since the birth of the nation is nearly gone.

Anthropological observers refer to the “Brazilianization” of North America, conveying an image of happy samba dancers and carnal brotherhood without borders. In line with the times, some of them congratulate the Americans on the increasing diversity. What is certain is that American culture is about to change. Adopting institutional habits from Latin America on a large scale, North America cannot remain America, as we have known her in the past, but must transform into something else. Whatever migrants provide by way of exotic cuisines and rites, experience largely contradicts a dependable relationship between their cultural heritage and an orderly society under the rule of law.

So how can an American nation presently obsessed with muddy notions of “equity,” “ethnic diversification,” and abolition of “biological constructs,” having lapsed into moral relativism, lead the free world? How can it save the West from obliteration in the history books, given the resolve of anti-Western conspiracies around the world and the ever-increasing demographic pressure?

Well, dare we believe that America is something truly special in history — vibrant, strong-willed, and indomitable? If so, there may be a living person, a daughter or son of that great nation, waiting to turn the tide.