Colossal U.S. Election Fraud - When the Righteous and Virtuous are Absent the Evil Triumphs!

After four years of relentless attacks and an ongoing campaign of lies and defamation against President Trump, unprecedented in both this country and possibly in the entire history of democratic republics, the left’s attempt at a coup against him has culminated in a colossal operation of voter fraud. The Democrats have stolen an election that President Trump had already won on the evening of November 3.

At this crossroads of political decay, the forces behind this swindle are emboldened by their election success, now seeking to install the usurper, Joe Biden, in the White House. Yet, a critical question remains: How much further will this wickedness and malicious mockery go before it all ends in an apocalyptic reckoning? The U.S. is now experiencing a societal climate of division and hate that has reached an unprecedented level of deterioration.

In my previous blog essay (link to essay), I addressed the issue of executive power and leadership in times of crisis for a nation. Anticipating the chaos surrounding the elections, I advocated for early law enforcement and military intervention to quell the unrest, violence, and looting fueled by Black Lives Matter and Antifa militants across the country. I also highlighted the challenges of governing a federally organized country, where constitutional mandates allow regional politicians to openly oppose the nation’s leader, even working actively against him. Initially sparked by the tragic killing of George Floyd by a police officer, the aforementioned organizations morphed into movements that sought to overthrow the government and remove President Trump from office. It remains incomprehensible why certain governors and mayors were allowed to continue their destructive practices. Their refusal to uphold their duties—by giving stand-down orders to law enforcement and even encouraging civil unrest and looting—should have led to legal action, including temporary removal from office.

While President Trump and a few cabinet members warned of widespread fraud and the chaos that tens of millions of mail-in ballots would cause, authorities did not act with sufficient urgency to secure a fair election.

The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the world’s largest security-related intergovernmental organization, could have deployed election monitoring personnel to the U.S. It routinely sends election observers to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and upon invitation, could have provided impartial oversight here as well.

However, the issue of election observers was never discussed in the public discourse, nor was the possibility of a repeat election brought up—especially in swing states where attorneys and control agents uncovered significant irregularities and substantial evidence of fraud, supported by dozens of affidavits from election officials and observers. There is now an abundance of proof (though, of course, denied by the Biden camp and the mainstream media) that tens of thousands of illegal votes were cast, and that the software used to evaluate ballots in many states was either flawed or deliberately manipulated. Estimates on the number of votes that were initially given to Trump but ended up going to Biden range from several hundred thousand to a few million.

While it may seem that the scale of fraud and election rigging renders any revision or a win for Trump impossible, under no circumstances should he concede or allow the left to get away with this fraudulent operation. The Trump administration must exhaust all legal avenues to prevent the Biden-Harris ticket from occupying the White House.

If we allow this election fraud to stand, the incoming Democratic administration will chart a course for Marxist-globalist destruction. Biden and his team will reverse and erase the monumental successes President Trump achieved during his first term. To name just a few: the restructuring of the Middle East, ending endless wars and unjust overseas military engagements, achieving energy independence for the U.S., tax reform benefiting both corporations and individuals, unprecedented economic growth with record-low unemployment rates for Black Americans, Hispanics, and women, new and improved trade deals with Canada and Mexico in place of the disastrous NAFTA, a trade agreement with China, and the revival and defense of Christian values and social ethics.

The triumph of the vile and depraved Democratic Party in securing the presidency is not a foregone conclusion. And we must never forget: evil has no existence on its own—it thrives only in the absence of the righteous and virtuous. I predict that the virtuous will return, and they must prevail, for the future of this nation—and of Western civilization itself—is at stake.

 

A Nation Threatened by Ignorance

---

The Ancient Adage of Democracy’s Fragility

The ancient adage that democracy can easily degenerate into its evil opposite, an ochlocracy—a reign of the mob—materializes in the reality of our everyday lives.

What is unfolding before our eyes is something I once thought possible only as speculation, something that could exist merely as an ideal representation in political philosophy. Yet here it is. We are witnessing in real time what happens when a society loses touch with the essential social ingredients of democracy—human freedom and its complement, individual responsibility—and succumbs to a chaotic wave of lawlessness and disorder.

---

Mob Rule and the Plebeians of Our Time

The rise of mob rule has not occurred overnight, and if it ever ends, it will not vanish quickly. I first warned of the looming "mental dictatorship" and the ideological despotism of the leftist mob in my January 31, 2017 post, "The Tyranny of the Mob." Link

In that post, I addressed a phenomenon that has gained prominence today. The mob—the plebeians of our time—is no longer made up of illiterate citizens as in ancient times. Today, the unruly crowd consists of the poorly educated and morally confused individuals from all walks of life: workers, teachers, journalists, academics, scientists, and politicians. Among this group, I count many, if not most, Democrats in both the Senate and Congress, as well as neoconservatives among Republicans and the neoliberal elite in the State Department and other governmental bodies. This includes the vast majority of faculty in higher education.

However, never before has the harm caused by political illiteracy and moral confusion been so profound, pushing the country to the brink of destruction. Misconceptions about political and social coexistence have reached dangerous levels. In my November 2015 blog post, I explored the fallacies and educational delusions that have brought the U.S. and, to a lesser degree, Europe to this point of societal disintegration. Link

---

The Mob’s True Aim

I doubt I would find a single person among the recent protesters—whether peacefully demonstrating or participating in the looting and violence—whose awareness would include a sound political philosophy for human and social existence. It wouldn’t matter whether the individual came from a highly educated background (college graduates, mayors, senators, media figures) or from less educated participants.

They have all fallen victim to the imposition of a “Culture of Insanity,” which has suffocated the basic reason necessary for stable social coexistence. By pretending to protest against alleged systemic anti-Black racism in the police force following the tragic killing of a Black man by a white officer, protests and riots broke out across the country. In many cases, law enforcement, ordered to stand down by Democrat governors and mayors, could only watch as looting and violence unfolded.

It soon became clear that the mob, acting under the guise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, was pursuing a different agenda. Their indifference toward Black-on-Black violence and the struggles of disadvantaged Blacks in society reveals that they are using the issue of systemic anti-Black racism as a smokescreen for their true objective.

---

The Radical Left’s True Purpose

Once calls to defund the police became widespread within leftist circles and the mob began establishing anarchistic “autonomous zones” and purging the nation’s history by destroying monuments, their true aim became clear: to disrupt national cohesion, overthrow the government, remove President Trump, transform the U.S. into a secularist Marxist-Socialist collective, devoid of its Christian social ethics, and ensure permanent Democrat control of the nation’s political institutions.

We are witnessing the collapse of a mighty nation, on the brink of civil war or disintegration—a fate that awaits any country that renounces law and order and surrenders its monopoly on power. Can this destruction be the goal of the broader leftist and progressive movements in the U.S.?

No longer can there be any doubt. The proponents of mob rule seem to believe that abolishing law enforcement and experimenting with new approaches to crime and disorder will lead to better, more humane governance. They believe that peaceful social coexistence and the political structures it requires can be subject to trial and error. They argue for “Reimagining Public Safety” as though eradicating law and order could lead to a more just society. But history has shown that dismantling the State’s monopoly on force inevitably leads to chaos, as evidenced by the failure of the CHAZ experiment in Seattle.

---

The Crisis of Moral and Political Understanding

A dreadful blend of ignorance and moral deficiency has taken hold of this country, the result of decades of indoctrination and an education system devoid of classical erudition. The disregard for the wisdom of the great traditions of classical liberal arts and the unbending desire to destroy monuments—attempting to erase history deemed objectionable from an ideological perspective—can only be explained by this education crisis.

What we are witnessing is the consequence of the collapse of foundational moral and civic values. The common denominator for what is right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, good and bad—the minimal agreement required for stable social coexistence—has been dismantled by this culture of ill-education and indoctrination. I addressed this phenomenon in my March 2015 post, "The Crisis of Morality," where I explained what happens when a society faces such a profound moral crisis. Link

---

The State of National Emergency and Constitutional Weakness

The mayhem of recent months has exposed a severe weakness in the U.S. Constitution that has yet to be publicly acknowledged. This weakness relates to the question of national leadership during times of distress. The rift between federal authorities (the President) and local and state authorities (governors and mayors) has demonstrated the lack of clear constitutional provisions for leadership in times of national crisis.

The chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent unrest following George Floyd’s death revealed the inefficiencies of the current leadership structure. Several left-wing governors and mayors acted against federal policy, turning their cities into war zones for political reasons. The President’s occasional mobilization of National Guard troops and the passing of executive orders to protect monuments may have prevented the worst, but the overall situation—where lawlessness dominates many cities—is unacceptable.

---

The Need for a Strong Executive in Times of Crisis

What we see unfolding in the U.S. makes clear the need to strengthen the President's executive powers in times of national crisis. While the Constitution grants the President special powers during emergencies, there is no clear preponderance for the Executive to act unilaterally, without legislative constraint. The President’s ability to protect the nation during crises must be paramount, and this requires revisiting the constitutional framework to allow for decisive action without undue interference from local and regional authorities.

This issue may be too important to ignore any longer. The survival of the nation depends on it.

---

A Path to National Salvation?

With the presidential election just months away, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. The chaos and unrest continue unabated. Radical leftists, and even some Republicans and Never-Trumpers, seem willing to support the rioters and lawbreakers, as they push to remove President Trump from office at all costs, even if it destroys the nation.

Restoring order may require extensive use of force—both law enforcement and military. In some areas, martial law or military rule may be necessary. Yet, ironically, it is often the media outlets that support the mob, such as CNN, who have called for martial law—projecting their own culpability onto the opposition.

The radical left and its enablers know the gravity of the situation. They will not relent unless the mob’s lawlessness ceases, either through exhaustion or by the force of an iron fist. The nation’s survival depends on decisive action, and it may fall to President Trump to lead the way.

---

Conclusion

The path ahead is grueling and costly. To restore order, we may have to return to a more traditional political order, rooted in our Christian heritage. Time will tell if it is too late to reverse course

Why My North Korea Resolve Could Have Made President Trump 'Famous' at the UN!

Had the advisors to President Trump read my blog essay on "How to Resolve the North Korea Crisis" of August 10, 2017 (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2017/08/how-to-resolve-north-korea-crisis.html), could they have made him 'famous' at the United Nations? If Mr. Trump had presented my two-tier approach to resolving this crisis, which is not only politically sound but also morally legitimate, they would hail him as a statesman by now. Does this sound conceited or arrogant? It might seem at the beginning of this brief essay, but hopefully will no longer at the end.

 

Imagine Mr. Trump, heeding the advice I proposed in my blog essay, saying something like the following in his speech at the United Nations Assembly: "I assure the world public that the U.S. will never use nuclear force against North Korea first. I guarantee the North Korean regime that the U.S. and its allies will not forcefully implement regime change in North Korea. My political administration will pursue the establishment of a peace treaty to that effect. While this process is ongoing and until we achieve a satisfying result, the U.S. will observe the principle of 'deterrence by denial.' It will implement missile defense capabilities and civil defense measures to protect itself and its allies if North Korea decides to abandon this proposal for resolving the crisis between our nations peacefully. However, I assure the world community of nations that if North Korea should strike or attempt to hit the U.S. or its allies with weapons of mass destruction first, the United States will strike back with all its might at whatever cost this might entail for the North Korean people."

 

This statement would have not only been prudent to say in the sense of putting the U.S. on the moral high ground in this conflict. It would also acknowledge that the experts in Washington D. C. had finally understood what North Korea's aggressive posture and its constant missile and nuclear testing is all about: to generate some atomic capacity to deter the United States from regime-change intervention! As mentioned previously, only the nuclear capability can be the big "equalizer" and dissuade potential imperialist intentions even on a conventional military level.

 

Did the world not watch or forget about what happened not long ago, i.e., in Libya, in 2011, at the Obama/Clinton cabinet's hands, when U.S. and NATO forces launched an air campaign to support dubious insurgent groups against the Libyan military and government forces? Such was the reward Libya's leader Muammar Gadhafi, murdered in the streets, received for his retreat from pursuing nuclear weapons and his trust and handshake with Obama and incumbent European heads of state at the time. And have we not observed what the U.S. did to Syria in the misguided and failed regime-change attempt to oust President Assad, arming terrorists and insurgents, supporting al-Qaeda and ISIS and other groups in the region, causing unspeakable and unnecessary mayhem? Now the Russians had to restore stability and prop Assad, and at this point, it is not hard to predict that the Syrian intervention attempt will end up as a massive embarrassment for the United States. Aside from that: What about all the waste of human life and treasure on both sides? Were some military-industrial profit and the satisfaction of Mr. Obama's ideological arrogance indeed worth the chaos, the cost of lives, and the unleashing of refugees and displaced people onto the shores of Europe?

 

As unfortunate as the most likely acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by North Korea is, it comes for good reasons and a clear rationale that the North Korean regime hides behind its seemingly erratic behavior. The U.S.' policy failures nourished this rationale.

 

The U.S. and the international community should further pursue containment and denuclearization of the Korean peninsula; however, they should not make it a condition for peace. The probable possession of specific nuclear capabilities of North Korea does not and must not justify a preemptive strike.

 

Instead of further pursuing hypocritical foreign affairs policies that cause more trouble than resolving issues, it is high time to arrive at some collective realization of past follies in foreign affairs among Washington's elites and to change course.

 

This nation and its leader need to eliminate the war-mongering neoliberal and neoconservative nomenclature in the U.S. State Department and among the advisory bodies to the White House. Leaders of nations cannot know everything, but we expect them to have an excellent and pragmatic judgment that enables them to choose wisely among policy proposals. Without wise choice offered, they will most likely fail.

How to Resolve the North Korea Crisis!

When back in the days of President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. gave North Korea technology for nuclear reactors and a few billion bucks on top of it, only gullible liberals believed that the regime would use atomic capability only for peaceful purposes.

Every serious scholar and student of international relations, then as well as today, knows that nuclear armament – even when it’s only a few warheads – is the big equalizer in terms of national security. It balances out any inferiority in terms of conventional armed forces, size of the country, demographics, and economic capacity. During the roughly forty years of the Cold War, it was the paradox of nuclear deterrence and the so aptly abbreviated (MAD) Mutually Assured Destruction that prevented any severe conventional wars from breaking out. The likelihood of any conflict escalating to the level of nuclear warfare reduced the chances for a conventional war on a larger scale.

Given the historically burdened ideological antagonism toward the West, it was to expect that North Korea would strive to become a nuclear power at all cost – even at the expense of lying to treaty partners and the international community and making pledges it never intended to keep. After all the leniency and unsuccessful attempts at appeasement under Carter in the 1970ies, Clinton in the 1990ies, and the do-nothing strategy of so-called strategic patience under Obama, it is now too late to prevent North Korea from becoming a nuclear power, albeit it a minor one.

It appears that we have somehow returned to the conditions that dominated a particular dimension of international relations during the Cold War, which means the hysteria on the part of the Strategic Community in the U.S. is unwarranted – and so is President Trump’s martial rhetoric.

Against the backdrop of the U.S.’ unmatched military means in terms of global power projection and nuclear capabilities, I propose a two-tier solution to resolve the conflict with North Korea. These measures would allow avoiding further escalation and avert unnecessary distress for international relations and potentially affected populations:

1. The stratagem of ‘Deterrence by Denial’ has to be applied by implementing all capabilities for missile defense and interception on the Korean peninsula and all other potential target areas for North Korean ballistic missiles, be it the west coast of the U.S., Guam, or other regions and locales. These aggressive military steps have to join hands with civil defense measures for the protection of populations and vital military and civilian infrastructure that help minimize any damage in the unlikely event of being impacted by the use of weapons of mass destruction.

2. The promise of ‘Annihilation upon 1st Strike’ has to be plausibly and assuredly threatened to the regime in North Korea. The U.S. must unmistakably convey through diplomatic channels and public discourse that it does not intend to use nuclear weapons against North Korea first. However, it will annihilate North Korea if North Korea uses nuclear weapons against the U.S. or any of its allies. Despite its seemingly irrational rhetoric, the regime of Kim Jong Un will not invite destruction upon themselves and their country.

There is no need for preemptive strikes to take out North Korean weaponry or delivery systems. The cost in human lives would be too high, total success uncertain, and retaliation most probable. If it comes to this, the U.S. and the rest of the world would be able to live with the fact that North Korea and its autocratic regime avail over some nuclear armament and feel powerful and on level par with other nuclear-armed nations around the world. However, like all the others, it will be condemned never to use them unless they want to bring Armageddon over their people.

While implementing this strategy and defusing the danger of thermonuclear, all diplomatic and other means of conflict resolution and appeasement can and should be used to keep the radical North Korean regime in check and further neutralize the threat.

Dealing with North Korea in the proposed way should usher the United States into a long-overdue new era of measured foreign affairs and national security policy that relinquishes the overly self-centered geostrategic arrogance and hubris of the past two decades.

Russophobia - Achilles’ Heel of US-Russia Relations

The demonizing of Russia and specifically of Vladimir Putin has been profoundly regretful and damaging to global affairs in recent years. It appears the U.S. could not rise above the old animosity vis-à-vis the follower nation to the Soviet Union that dominated bi-polar relations during the Cold War. In the quarter-century since, the United States, in its leading role in NATO and cooperation with the European Union, has pursued interventionist policies. Those aimed at global predominance and strengthening its position as the sole remaining superpower.

The U.S. and its partners wasted the opportunities to establish a righteous new world order the post-Cold War security environment offered. As I've made clear in my blog entries over the past years, geopolitical misconceptions paired with strategic hubris and ideological delusions as rampant in the White House and the State Department regimes led to utterly folly in foreign affairs international relations. Besides the undermining and destruction of nation-state structures in the Middle East and the intentional armed support of extremists and insurgents, color revolutions have been backed by the U.S. and E.U., for example, in Georgia and Ukraine. Central to the failed policies was the stunning neglect of legitimate national and strategic interests of other players in international relations.

The latter fact became painfully visible in the wake of the regime change in Ukraine. Every reasonably informed scholar of strategic and security studies could have foreseen the control of Crimea and eastern Ukraine's support by Russia. The installation of a puppet regime in Kiev by Washington and Berlin was unacceptable to Russia after the U.S. had pushed toward her borders through aggressive NATO expansion. To drive Russia out of its Black Sea ports and potentially prepare full-fledged membership of Ukraine, as the geostrategic 'Near Abroad,' in NATO would be intolerable for Russia. The blatant disregard of legitimate Russian interests went along with the infamy of blaming Russia for imperialism that had been clearly and unashamedly pushed by the U.S. and the transatlantic alliance.

It is impossible to accurately verify the degree to which strategic ignorance, national hubris, indifferent imperialism, pseudo-democratic universalism, or apparent economic interest and pressure from the military-industrial complex have led to the failed policy design. Yet, the miserable Pax Americana attempted in the last quarter-century was certainly a conglomerate of all these and probably more factors. In conjunction with Putin's demonization and the artificial preservation of Russia as the primary geopolitical enemy, western powers set the course for missing out on establishing a functioning global post-Cold War world order, including meaningful collaboration for containment of radical Islam. The outrageous claim of the Democratic Party that Russian hacking and cyber intervention lost the election for Hillary Clinton –probably one of the biggest scams in politics ever suggested– further exacerbated the relations with Russia. Mr. Obama's decision to expatriate Russian diplomats and impose additional sanctions under the pretense of Russia's alleged interference in the U.S. presidential elections will rank prominently among the many political follies this man has perpetrated.

The new administration under President Donald Trump, which alone gave hope to conquer the old resentments toward Russia and alleviate the damage the previous administration had caused, appears to be succumbing to the Russophobe and Putin-hating pressure forces in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the media. The new U.S. Ambassador's aggressive speech to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, and the ousting of security advisor General Flynn based on informal conversations with the Russian ambassador provides sad testimony to that assessment.  

Overcoming the hysteria vis-à-vis Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin has to be considered the number one priority in U.S. foreign affairs. Maintaining Russia artificially as an enemy image for a new Cold War and conventional arms race must be ended. A mindful and critical, yet simultaneously constructive and respectful relationship with Russia from the part of the United States is long overdue, for whose materialization the numerous challenges to international relations and global security offer ample opportunity. Russia has to be part of fighting the Islamic State and radical Islamism worldwide and has to play a role in stabilizing the Middle East. While mutually respecting legitimate national interests, a balance of power should result in the pursuance of common objectives and joint ends in global affairs.

But this might require prominent representatives of society and state in the U.S. to stop calling Mr. Putin a murderer, abandoning the sanctions regime, and acknowledging Russia's legitimate strategic and economic interests concerning the Caucasus, Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It will also necessitate the easing up of U.S. and NATO forces' aggressive posture in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe.

The new administration must not continue the insanity of the Obama years. The step from considering Russia as a geopolitical enemy toward Russia as a geostrategic counterpart and potential collaborator in global affairs must take place now. In light of Western Christian societies' Islamic subversion, this appears to be a strategic necessity and social obligation.

2016 U.S. Presidential Election - Political Intuition TRUMPS Propaganda

The United States, and with it the world, got a respite. The utter catastrophe, namely the prolongation of the past eight years' nightmare, so it seems, could be averted. A horrific and ultimately devastating third Obama-term was prevented by denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. Something already to be considered the political miracle of the century. 

Against almost all polls and the united predictions of media pundits and news outlets, Donald Trump got elected to become the 45th president of the United States. The good intuition of some 60 million Americans made them vote for Mr. Trump, despite unparalleled disinformation and defamation campaign against him, carried forth by the mainstream media and advanced on the school grounds and college campuses in the months leading up to the election. They voted for him despite the vitriol spewed at Trump not only from his Democrat opponent in the race but also from certain elements in his political party. But most importantly, they voted for him because their political instinct made them see through the concerted attempt of almost all forces of public information and discourse to cover up for the colossal failure of the first African-American president's presidency. 

Over the years, I have commented on the utter follies of Obama's policies in previous blog entries back to 2009, criticizing the pursuance of his Marxist-utopian notions of politics in domestic and international affairs. Imagine that after that sham of Obama's presidency, some people dare to consider anybody else unfit for that office! Mind-boggling political shortsightedness, cultural parochialism, and ideological prejudice of those who still approve of Obama's job performance. Yet, signs that he had turned the Democratic Party into an ailing enterprise and that he doomed Hillary Clinton's run were already tangible to all those who had kept an open mind, and heart for that matter. As the Daily Caller reported, under Obama, Democrats had lost more than 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 U.S. Congress, and 13 Senate seats.

On regional and local levels, significant numbers of American people had already rejected the advancement of Obama's delusional globalist policies. They neglected human coexistence's ontological necessities and were therefore highly damaging to our social and political coexistence. (for more on the 'Ontological Principles of the Political,' compare my blog essay of November 15, 2015, on "Immigration – U.S. and Europe Governed by Lunacy" https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/11/immigration-us-and-europe-governed-by.html). 

However, I emphasized that the lunacy of such policies not only occurs on the side of the progressive Left in this country—the neoconservative elements in the Republican Party also support these ideas. Domestically, out-of-their-mind proponents like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan propped up Obama's policies of open borders and uncontrolled immigration. Internationally, prominent Republican politicians such as John McCain or Lindsay Graham went along with the Middle East's destruction by arming and supporting dubious insurgents and bringing down established nation-state structures. They also endorsed the U.S. government's idiotic stance toward Russia, most of all the aggressive posture and saber-rattling of the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine and the Baltic states. Quite clearly, neglecting other stakeholders' legitimate national interests in global affairs and negating the significant stakes of strategic thinking had turned the attempted imposition of this type of Pax Americana into an absurdity. 

As I made clear in a blog back in April of 2016, after the dropping out of Rand Paul of the Republican presidential preliminaries, only the election of Donald Trump could raise hope for an urgently needed turnaround to bring U.S. policies to its senses. Alas, the overdue reversal of U.S. foreign affairs policies is not a given now where Mr. Trump got elected. It will all depend on whether or not he will prevent the influence of neoconservatives from altering his policy promises. Of paramount importance will be the person the President-elect is going to assign as his secretary of state. Politicians of statesmanlike stature have always acknowledged the supreme significance of foreign affairs in governance and thus dedicated their prime effort and attention to it. 

The radical policies of ignorant and deluded people, who happened to reign over global affairs in the quarter-century gone by since the collapse of the Soviet Union, drove the United States and Western civilization in its entirety to a crossroads. They wasted the chances the post-Cold War order offered by a reckless U.S. strategy aiming at singular global dominance. At the bottom of this move toward a centralized world stood the weakening and indeed dissolution of the nation-state concept, combined with a pseudo-messianic democratic universalism, manifesting itself in attempts and support for interventionist regime-change for instance in Libya, Syria, in Ukraine and the Caucasus, as well as in imposing nation-building in the Middle East and Asia, most foolishly in Afghanistan. This strategic design for a new world order presented us with a new face of contemporary warfare, featuring the advancement of militant progressive secularism and the ethnic and cultural subversion of western societies by pushing and facilitating disproportional immigration from non-western nations and regions. Such strategies aimed to synchronize the masses and prepare the ground for continuous governance by liberal and progressive regimes.

 

In the face of all this, Mr. Trump's victory came at the eleventh hour. His empowerment by way of sufficient Electoral College votes was a clear rejection of globalist policies and politicians, against which Mr. Trump waged his presidential campaign in the first place. His victory also delivered a devastating blow to the hubris of those liberal and progressive elites who thought they had already won the struggle for the political future of the lead nation of the free world. 

 

It remains to be seen if Mr. Trump and his incoming administration will be able to redress, neutralize, and reverse the policy failures of recent years. The scope of what he needs to accomplish is vast. Above all, it ranges from foreign affairs, the pacification of the Middle East, the resetting of relations with the Kremlin, and preventing the U.S.'s political culture from further decline by overcoming the cultural and moral nihilism that has taken hold in significant segments of society and state. Additionally, an important task will be the narrowing of the ethnic and ideological division within the country. 

While the task is not an easy one, all good-willing people should dearly hope for Mr. Trump to succeed. The hour of decision for the survival of this republic as well as our whole civilization has arrived!

2016 U.S. Presidential Election and the Future of the West

The future of the United States and the future of the entire Western world are at stake with the U.S. presidential election outcome. The presidency of the incumbent B. Obama has been a sham throughout. A notorious liar (you can keep your doctor; Syrian red line; Russia's aggressions), political dilettante (caused unparalleled domestic and international damage), and incorrigible partisan politician (intolerant left-wing ideologue), he divided the country culturally as it has probably never been the case since the Vietnam War.

Although being a Democrat, he has persecuted a neo-conservative foreign policy of interventionism, supported by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and quite a few out-of-their-minds Republican senators and congress members, like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio. He urged interventions where none were necessary or legitimate, which caused chaos in Libya, Syria, and Iraq, fostered the emergence of ISIS, and further deteriorated relations with Russia and Europe.

At this juncture, toward the end of Obama's tenure, one can predict that Hillary Clinton as president would continue the pernicious path of US-American politics, both domestically and internationally. Her Supreme Court judges' appointments would push American society's cultural decline and moral nihilism further. Indifferent immigration and open borders will advance the dissolution of the proper structure of a healthy nation-state as the only guarantor for sound legal and social policies.  Europe will be brought closer to a military conflict with Russia by advancing the destructive policies of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States and American power projection into the South China Sea. It is to expect that the overstretch of U.S. foreign policy and the American military forces will continue and drive Russia, China, and Iran closer together to ally against what they rightfully may consider excessive imperialism.

As the White House run unfolded, there was one candidate who gave hope that if he got elected, we could expect an overdue turn-around of U.S. policies; Rand Paul. With his dropping out, only one candidate remains, who, despite his deficits, could ensure us of policies that might save the U.S. and the West if it is not already much too late. This candidate is Donald Trump.

Yet, the moral nihilism that has taken hold in American politics might make his success impossible. The way his opponents and even members of his party treated him was so shameful that one has to ask if the U.S. has already degenerated into a banana republic. The dumbing down of the U.S. and its citizens has dwindled to an alarming low. Driven to accept the ideology of affirmative action and political correctness, neither reality nor truth matter anymore. Despite his first term's dismal record, the American people reelected a half-black guy because of the color of his skin and the fact that he carried a "D" in front of his name. The next president might be elected because of her gender and having a "D" in front of her name.

If that happens, the U.S., as well as the West, will be finished.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it!

Shakespeare's aphorism from Hamlet comes to mind when one looks into the state of affairs in global relations. With every day, the evidence becomes overwhelming that what I considered to be the political blunder of a U.S. administration run by a presidential dilettante of hitherto unknown proportions is part of a grand, albeit pathological, globalist strategic design.

The plan appears to aim at a New World Order under the exclusive leadership of the United States. Going back to the Project for the New American Century (P.N.A.C.), a neoconservative think-tank of the late 1990ies, this foreign policy approach has guided U.S. foreign policy in principle ever since. Despite its roots in the Republican party, the Imperialist idea of establishing a Pax Americana, a New World Order enforced and controlled by the U.S., was willfully extended by the governing regime of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama. While slamming the Bush-Cheney administration for the Iraq War and attempting to take military control over the Gulf region, he aggressively continued shaping foreign affairs policies and implementing an international security order according to American interests. Since Obama took office, we could witness the instigation of the Arab Spring by the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against President Mubarak, the backing of insurgents in Libya and Syria, and the turning of both nations into failed states. Furthermore, the Obama administration enabled the formation of ISIS and caused the death of tens of thousands of people and the displacement and flight of hundreds of thousands. Those policies drove the world into chaos, thus far unparalleled in our lifetime.
 
However, American imperialism, hiding behind alleged democratic principles and presumed policy necessities, landed one of its probably most sanctimonious achievements in Ukraine by orchestrating a coup d'état against the democratically-elected, albeit allegedly corrupt, government of then-president Yanukovich. By establishing the Washington and Berlin-backed Poroshenko administration in Kyiv, the U.S. and the E.U. drove Ukraine into a fratricidal civil war and severely damaged Ukraine's and Russia's economy. In the usual reversal of cause-effect realities, the mainstream media and the U.S. State Department blamed Russia's aggression and Mr. Putin's expansionism. Since then, the military build-up on the Russian and NATO side has drastically increased, laying the seed for what quite a few commentators consider to be the initial charge for World War III.

From a western and transatlantic alliance perspective, though, a most disturbing development has to be seen in the unleashing of a wave of mass migration from the Middle East's conflict regions toward Central Europe, particularly toward the more developed and geographically conveniently located nations within the European Union. While many speculate where tens of thousands of destitute refugees get the money from to pay people smugglers and traffickers, the suspicion arises that the leading proponents and do-gooders launched a grand strategic design for a New World Order against their allies on the European continent. Ethnic and cultural subversion shall help synchronize and conform to the masses and thereby facilitate (world) governance under U.S. preeminence.

We are confronting new faces of contemporary warfare - mass immigration of people from Muslim parts of the world into countries of Christian provenance; de(con)struction of the cultural and moral fabric of western societies; the advancement of progressive secularism; obliteration of traditional family structures; legalization of drugs.

The quarter-century of post-Cold War (world) order did not see the emergence of a definite geostrategic posture based on traditional territorial scenarios and clear front-lines. Instead, an ever-increasing (world) disorder materialized, pushed by global players' reckless policies that side with the U.S. government and its international dominance goal, unchallenged by other nations or regional powers.

The path to this centralized and quite totalitarian World Order is paved, at the bottom, by the weakening, and, in the long run, dissolution of the nation-state concept. A subject matter that will warrant a comprehensive analysis on its own; one that I will provide in a forthcoming essay.

If there is truth to this rough outline of global affairs, then indeed, the madness does have a method!

Loretta Lynch Confirmation

It has been a perennial dream of liberal politicians to get rid of borders and the nation-state's confinements, thus eradicating any differences between citizens and foreigners, be they illegal or legal immigrants. However, any society attempting to obliterate these differences is bound to perish in the long run. I have given a comprehensive account of what I termed the neo-cosmopolitan idea in my blog-essay of August 9, 2010, in the wake of the Arizona Immigration Law's rejection by a federal judge.

I have warned about this particular utopian phantasm that claims the individual human being, and not the (nation-) state, to be the protagonist in interstate and international relations. As I made clear, while the traditional position sees the (nation-) state as the moral actor in political affairs through which individual rights can be brought to bear alone, the neo-cosmopolitan position stipulates a radical reduction of state-sovereignty. It promotes the idea of a global social contract. Hence, the attempt to put any immigrant on level par with a citizen, a person holding legal citizenship, granting them equal rights in employment, voting, social support, etc.

So, yes, Mr. Obama's (most likely unconstitutional) executive orders are highly unreasonable and will severely damage this nation's social fabric. It would be preposterous to confirm a person into the highest office of law enforcement of the land after claiming in a congressional hearing that illegal immigrants have the same right to employment as US citizens. It doesn't play any role whether the job aspirant is a man or a woman, black or white, Republican or Democrat. By whatever bizarre ideological confusion, a person negates one of the most profound statecraft criteria, she deserves exclusion from holding such office.

While the federal prosecutor from Brooklyn, N.Y., Loretta Lynch might be, as Mr. Obama claimed, a "tough, fair, and independent attorney," she seems to be unfit for the office of Attorney General due to her unsound political philosophy.

Failed US Foreign Policies Result in New Form of Radicalized Warfare

When talking to friends before the presidential election in 2012, I repeatedly stated that if Barack Obama had character and proper self-awareness, he would resign. He would declare to his people that he found out that he was totally in over his head during his first tenure and realized his utter incapability to carry out the most powerful job in the world. While the option for him to resign is still on the table, albeit with minuscule probability, I ascribed his reelection to colossal political illiteracy on the part of the majority of American people. 

It demonstrated that irrational ideological prejudice and preconceived notions of politics control Americans' minds. The seed of liberal socialization and the lunacy of political correctness yield their fruits and cloud, if not incapacitate, sound political judgment. 

Yet, not even I, in my deep cultural pessimism about the decline of the Western world, was able to anticipate the utter disaster the Obama presidency, quite often not only supported by his party but rather by equally misguided politicians from the other side of the aisle, was going to bring about. I've been commenting on the blunder of Obama policies in domestic affairs (e.g., immigration, healthcare, same-sex marriage) and foreign affairs (e.g., Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine) in previous blogs. While I am not happy that the catastrophes that unfolded inside and outside the U.S. proved me right, I shall not repeat myself. But the hope lives on that readers will scroll down and read expositions that can usually neither find in mainstream media nor high school and college education, for that matter. 

Here I focus on international relations and elaborate on another most destructive effect yielded by the Obama regime's failed policies. An outcome that moves into the limelight of international politics, especially after the Caucasus and the Middle East have become engulfed by raging conflagrations far beyond warfare's usual stakes. 

 

The encouragement and even unconditional military support and armament of the opposition forces at first in Libya, then in Syria, the childish announcement of "Assad must go" by Obama and his silly drawing of a red line regarding chemical weapons has caused irreversible damage. It brought the war back to Iraq and more or less nullified the progress achieved there in the past decade. But it also generated a new kind of asymmetrical threat, one that is far worse than the asymmetrical warfare against global terrorism we have become used to ever since September 11, 2001. The Obama administration has radicalized smoldering conflicts by taking out established regimes or politically emboldening and militarily strengthening dubious insurgent forces. They removed or significantly weakened regionally pacifying governments and political administrations that usually contain armed conflict or at least keep it within certain bounds and on a politically controllable level. 

The emergence of the I.S. - the Islamic State, a terrorist group that initially appeared on the scene as ISIS/Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) - would not have been possible without the incoherent and misguided foreign policy of the Obama administration. It ushered the Middle East into a new era of asymmetrical warfare that has a direct global impact and should concern the U.S. as well as the entire occidental world. 

The I.S. replaced the pinpointed and mostly arbitrary violence of terrorism with the horror of planned persecution of religious, foremost Christian minorities and magnitude and barbarity of killings that include crucifixions and the beheading of children. (For my article on the history of ideas of terrorism, go to the Homeland Security Digital Library at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=455848). The brutality and destructiveness of I.S.'s operations have even scared away the Iraqi army, who did not put up a decent fight despite superiority in numbers and trained by American instructors. 

A self-appointed conglomerate of radical Islamist thugs, using to significant degree weapons sent to Syrian opposition forces by the U.S., made the established and decently trained, organized, and equipped regular Iraq army run. Human atrocities committed by the I.S. are accompanied by targeted vandalism, destruction of churches and other cultural treasures, causing irreversible damage to humankind's cultural heritage. I counted the armament of Syrian rebels as one of the disastrous foreign policy failures in my post of May 10, 2013 (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html). 

It is mind-boggling to be aware that almost all of this could have been prevented. Alas, the ignorance of the incumbent political administration is stunning. A strategically overwhelmed president at the helm who has no sound concept of international affairs and cultural interrelations in his mind caused damage whose magnitude is mind-boggling, given the brevity of the few years he has been in office. If ever, it might take generations to correct the committed errors.

However, the fact is that fundamental misconceptions about political (and thus profoundly human) affairs magnify themselves in implementing political ideas. For preventing further damage to global issues, a swift turnaround must bring American (and Transatlantic, for that matter) foreign policy to its senses. 

Given Mr. Obama's stubbornness and hubris and conceitedness, there is little hope things will get better in the two years he has left in office. Unless, of course, his ignorance and ideological prejudice will be reined in by the Senate, by Congress, and by a significant majority of the American public.

US and European Foreign Policy – the Blunder of Liberal Interventionism continues with Libya

Peoples have a moral right to political self-determination; (nation-) States have a juridical right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

 

The political mistake of consistently violating this main idea continues now, after the surge of international military interventions into sovereign nations' internal affairs in the 1990s, with Libya. Apart from the unwise decision to commit to intervening in Libya, the decision to intervene by establishing a no-fly zone came too late; the objective is unclear; the conduct of the operation is flawed. The Western coalition is neglecting a fundamental principle of the philosophy of just war – war should be waged only be waged if there is proportionality between objectives and cost. In other words, the damage and suffering the war causes should not be more significant than the hurt and suffering it aims to avert.

 

To prevent interventions by the international community into sovereign nations' domestic affairs, the United Nations Charter introduced and acknowledged the sovereign equality of all nations. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 of December 21, 1965, reemphasizes this principle once again: "No state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of another State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, or cultural elements are condemned." 

 

This stipulation is a morally valid norm in a global society. As is currently the case in Libya, a government quelling violent political uprisings or revolutionary attempts that aim at its overthrow does not constitute a justifiable cause for intervention. A State can only lose the fundamental State right of sovereignty if a government commits crimes against humanity in the sense of religious or ethnic cleansing or pogroms on certain parts of its population. Cracking down on insurgents and revolutionaries does not fall under this category. 

 

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, Western powers have begun to violate this principle profoundly. National uprisings received support by outright forceful intervention in some countries, but not in others. Apart from military feasibility considerations, ideological bias was the primary incentive for interventions.

Western powers began to breach the principle of national sovereignty during Yugoslavia's disintegration in the early 1990s. After they prematurely acknowledged the former Yugoslav provinces as independent nation-states, the subsequently fledgling states that had just seceded from the former Yugoslav Republic needed help. Thus was the NATO 1995 bombing in Bosnia and Herzegovina vindicated in the wake of the Srebrenica Massacre's apparent horrors. In the two years prior, despite an imposed no-flight zone by NATO, the war had raged on unrestrictedly on the ground before American and NATO airstrikes of Operation Deliberate Force finally paved the way for the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord. 

A few years later, Liberal Interventionism continued, as always for allegedly humanitarian reasons, in Kosovo. After Serbian police and military forces cracked down on Albanian freedom fighters (the Kosovo Liberation Army/KLA), the Euro-Atlantic alliance suddenly felt compelled to embark upon an air-campaign to prevent a humanitarian disaster and take out Serbian forces. Nobody mentioned that the KLA had advanced their case in Kosovo with violent means. Their acts of cruelties underlined the KLA's unjustifiable use of violent means. The reversal of cause and effect, in both ethical as well as political terms, was palpable. There is a good reason and evidence to believe that intervention caused increased bloodshed and intensified ethnic cleansing in both instances, at least in the short term, thus aggravating the humanitarian crisis it intended to prevent in the first place.

 

The same appears to be happening in Libya now. Encouraged by events in Egypt, a dubious group of insurgents, yet to be defined in their ethnic, religious, and political composition, seek to oust Muammar Qaddafi's regime. The callous Qaddafi did not kill his people before the uprising broke out. And he did not attack another country or neglect UN-resolutions over years and years. He crushed an uprising which every political leader – authoritarian or otherwise – would have done. There are no national interests at stake for the US and the EU. There is no humanitarian necessity for intervention, and there is no need to establish a no-fly zone. 

 

The reason for this ignorance in security matters owes to an unbearable unawareness about political theory, international affairs, and the nature of the armed conflict. Neither liberal left nor libertarian right, on both sides of the Atlantic, has ever understood the business of war. When dealing with political violence and armed struggle, they either do too much or too little. In the case of the current political administration in the US, this ignorance manifests itself in a lack of a consistent foreign policy strategy, exacerbated by an astonishing lack of leadership capability on the part of the president. 

 

If it consoles Mr. Obama or anybody, I shall mention that he is not alone. Some heads of government in the European Union contend for the number one ranking in committing foreign policy blunder.