Amend the 2nd Amendment!

As far as the right to bear arms for private citizens is concerned, the U.S. finds itself in an incredibly exclusive and delicate situation. 

When it added its Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, it did not explicitly mention the natural law-based individual right to self-defense. Still, it was somewhat tacitly hidden behind if not buried under the collective right to bear arms for the sake of ensuring the security of a free state. In the peculiar grammar of the time, the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Today, however, conditions have drastically changed. The United States is a developed and stable republic with the most powerful military force in the world. Its fifty States maintain their own National Guard as a quasi-modern type of militia. The legislation of Posse Comitatus regulates and limits the federal government's powers vis-à-vis the political state entities. It appears that the collective aspect of the Second Amendment, to secure a free state, is no longer critically relevant under the current political circumstances.

 

In our day and age, deterring a "tyrannical" government or repelling invasion does not appear to be serious challenges anymore. Not to mention that government nowadays avails over weaponry that cannot possibly be matched with any form of private gun ownership, whether or not the latter includes assault-type or any other military-type of rifles.

 

The apparent emphasis of the Second Amendment on the collective right to arm citizens for the sake of building a well-regulated militia resulted from the specific historical circumstances under which the founders established the new republic. In other words, and as far as private citizens' gun ownership was concerned, the timeless and enduring natural right to individual self-defense was combined with, if not overridden and superseded by the temporal necessity to incorporate and emphasize a militia clause. Given the empirical circumstances, the founding fathers considered the right to possess arms for the collective reason of securing liberty within a fledgling republic more critical than the explicit authorization for individual self-preservation. It most likely happened because the innate right to self-defense had been a perennial element of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition for centuries and was considered a granted right. 

 

Consequently, and to overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the individual self-defense component of the law would appear conducive. Such clarification also explains why private citizens do not need to own arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures such as a voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. Had law enforcement followed through on the latter aspect, the recent Florida shooting incident with 17 people killed would not have happened. However, proper socialization and education should provide the primary solutions to this challenge, and arguments to this effect follow at this essay's end.

 

As I explained in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre in my 2015 essay on Guns in Private Hands (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html): "Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership within prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force [of the State]. Both the monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for most effective internal safety and security of a nation."

 

I also made clear that due to the country's vastness and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements, the United States had to authorize private citizens to own firearms generously from the inception of its nationhood.

 

Against the backdrop of an adequate political philosophy for private gun ownership, as briefly outlined here and in the blog essay mentioned above, the current debate's ideological prejudices and misconceptions become evident.

 

Constitutions and constitutional amendments can be modified and adjusted so that lawmakers maintain the founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles under the ever-changing conditions of earthly existence. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. Such legal specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which private citizens may own certain types of guns. Guiding principles should be the need to defend one's own home, and safety and the legitimate hunting of wildlife is concerned.

 

As shown, to argue for the possession of military-style assault weapons by reference to the Second Amendment's militia clause can no longer be justified. However, since there is no conscription for military service in the U.S., and soldierly service in federal and national guard forces is voluntary, citizens interested in military assault weapons should be introduced to them in the regulated and safe environment of shooting clubs. This support could well be done in close civil-military cooperation and help foster the bond between military and civilian communities, which is crucial in open societies.

 

On the other hand, to argue for the disarmament of private citizens or even the Second Amendment's termination in light of recent school shooting incidences demonstrates nothing but ill-education and misjudgment regarding the importance of private gun ownership in a developed society. Those stances are neither philosophically nor politically tenable. And history confirms that the more totalitarian a nation becomes, the more the rights to self-defense and to bear arms become restricted.

 

A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks, for that matter – are used.

 

In the end, it is the proper socialization of young people and the continued efforts to provide adequate education and character building that instill proper regard for human life. Responsible social formation helps to overcome self-indulgence and apathetic egotism and to withstand the desensitization of the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies.

 

A comprehensive and unbiased grasp of private gun ownership and the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment should be part of the mindset of an informed citizenry.

A Call for a Statute of Limitations on the Reporting of Sexual Harassment

As domestic politics in the United States deteriorate ever more into hateful obstructionism and animosity, an old tool of denunciating the political opponent has reemerged. Accusations of sexual harassment abound to an inflationary degree, and it's time to do something about it. 

 

 During the recent presidential campaign, schemers raised allegations of sexual misconduct to denounce then-presidential nominee Donald Trump; now, they use the same tool against a candidate who runs for a Republican seat in the US Senate. A sexual harassment hit-job has been launched against Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, carried out by a woman who has been a political activist and was allegedly harassed by Moore some four decades ago when she was supposedly still underage. In the meantime, it turns out that she has forged an entry into a high school yearbook. Even a Democrat came under fire, Senator Al Franken, but he appears to be a particular case. The way he resigned his Senate seat makes one assume that it is sanctimoniously sacrificed for the Democratic Party to have leverage in the future against Republican candidates or even the President himself. 

 

 All of a sudden, and years if not decades after alleged incidents took place, at convenient points in time during campaigns and just weeks before elections, accusations are made public, mere statements denounce candidates, and barely any or none evidence support the claims. With word against word, reputations are tainted, and careers, if not destroyed, then often severely damaged. 

 

 How often have I, decades ago, as a young military officer, petted a recruit on his shoulder, trying to cheer him up in situations of distress and exhaustion? Or later in my career embraced a secretary or colleague when she (or he) had just learned of a severe blow of fate? How easily could one of these guys today, given ill-will, ideological resentment, and getting paid enough money, go public and accuse me of inappropriate advancements or even sexual harassment if I were to run for public office? Any of these situations, taken out of context, could harm my reputation severely, even though any of these situations, in proper perspective, would testify to morality and personal leadership skills.

 

There is no doubt that the perpetrators of harassment and inappropriate behavior should be held accountable. However, there must be limits to when victims may raise accusations of alleged or actual harassment. This unfortunate and pernicious trend of sexual harassment accusations in private and political spheres must end. 

If we honestly envisage beneficial and prosperous gender-coexistence, I propose the observation of the following three courses of action:

 

 Firstly, both males and females have to find that sense of humor and understanding again that, inside the confines of cultured tact, helps deal with the erotically charged atmosphere that naturally and almost always subconsciously plays out between the sexes, even and particularly also in non-sexual situations. In the humorless age of political correctness and undiscriminating sexual equality, people seem to have unlearned the decent and thoughtful way of dealing with this phenomenon.

 

 Secondly, as I have argued in the cases of Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner, people have got to realize that the sexual persona of a man stands outside his moral character. If a guy, for whatever reason, goes too far in his advancement and, short of violent behavior and physical harm, says or does something inappropriate, it should not destroy his career or ruin his life. In other words, a sexual misstep does not necessarily mean that this person could not be trustworthy as a politician or employee, as a friend or business associate, or even as a Hollywood magnate. 

 

 Thirdly, legislative authorities ought to constitute a statute of limitations for reporting non-criminal sexual advancements and harassment. If violated, sanctions and penalties apply to prevent denunciations and the premature conviction of alleged perpetrators in the court of public opinion. Still, harsher penalties must await those whose allegations turn out to be unfounded or even fabricated. I suggest introducing a one-year statute of limitations, three years at the most, from the time of the incident or from reaching the age of maturity to be appropriate. 

 

 Like so many other issues about the arrangement of human coexistence, we can appropriately deal with the topic of sexual harassment only on the grounds of suitable cultural awareness and proper education, precisely what liberal feminism and the impositions of the progressive Left of recent years rendered nearly impossible. 

 

It is time to rediscover a differentiated stance on sexual equality and let healthy levels of sensitivity, chivalry, mutual respect, and civility return to how males and females deal with each other. Restraint on the part of men in their advancements and an elegant rejection on the part of women grows naturally out of proper socialization and education, both of which help to instill a moral sense of virtue and reciprocal courtesy.

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.

The United States of America – Is a Hegemon Devouring Itself?

Half a year before last fall's presidential elections, I argued (see my blog essay "U.S. Presidential Elections and the Future of the West" https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2016/04/2016-us-presidential-election-and.html) that the fate of this country and the entire Western civilization will depend on its outcome. By denying Hillary Clinton the presidency, we must prevent a third term of Obama's Marxist-Globalist policies. The result was one I had predicted and hoped for; Trump won. In a follow-up essay, I explained how the U.S. and the world were supposed to get a respite from the insanity of previous years. 

But a look at Washington D.C. some eight months into Mr. Trump's presidency makes one wonder about wasted chances and failures to implement urgently needed policy promises. It appears that President Trump's pragmatic instincts succumbed to neoconservative imposition from within the White House as well as the Senate and the Congress.

 

Instead of vetoing it and signaling decisive course correction, a seemingly helpless Trump signed a sanctions bill on Russia and had himself bullied by the mainstream media into moral relativism and the absurdity of designating (fascist) right-wing violence worse than (equally fascist) left-wing violence. He disregarded the Virginia governor and Charlottesville mayor's lawlessness, both of whom intentionally and purposefully let a demonstration turn violent by ordering police forces to stand down. 

While fortunately proclaiming the end of nation-building and democracy export, Mr. Trump caved to the pressure for a troop surge in Afghanistan and the continuation of U.S. presence there. 

 

The malice of Never-Trumpers and the hateful obstructionism of Democrats and neoconservative Republicans appear to force Trump to continue the past two decades' terrible policy failures. He seems, at least partially, to abandon the promises he ran on in his presidential campaign. 

 

Given my political philosophy expertise and my participation in educational efforts in Eastern and Southeastern Europe after the end of the Cold War, I have tried to get in touch with the Trump administration since campaign times, particularly since its inauguration. But, alas, to no avail. I admit that I felt the need to do something about Washington's overbearing strategic blunder that has caused so much damage to global affairs. And I was sure that only President Trump gave hope to overcome and defeat the previous administration's wrong ways (after Rand Paul as the best suited among the Republican establishment candidates had dropped out). 

 

As repeatedly addressed in my blog essays, I sensed the lack of philosophical depth in U.S. politics. I had observed the mistakes ill-educated and ideologically disoriented politicians and advisors, liberals as well as neocons, had perpetrated time and again, and from whose apparent failures they refused to learn. I witnessed how the establishment of a post-Cold War New World Order started as an initially well-intended and seemingly meaningful project. In 1991, the transatlantic alliance instituted close relations with Russia in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council/NACC (later on named Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council/EAPC). The creation of NATO/Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1994 intended to expand the alliance's reach to meet the new challenges Out-of-Area in close cooperation with Russia. 

I shared the initial enthusiasm for building a new stable and just world order by providing educational input in multiple undertakings within the PfP framework. Sadly, those good relations soon became perverted by nothing else than Washington's geostrategic arrogance and hubris.

Propaganda from both sides aside, relations began to sour due to aggressive power projection and the increasing neglect and alienation of Russia's and other global players' strategic and economic interests by the U.S. and its European and NATO allies. Of course, this carelessness happened in combination with the old strategic ploy for vindicating one's unjust policies by reversing actual cause-effect relations. As so often before in history, it resulted in the grounding of U.S. foreign affairs and national security policies on intentional misconceptions and outright lies. While the U.S. pushed NATO closer to Russia's borders and engaged in ever-bolder imperialism, it blamed Russia precisely for what it was doing itself. 

 

Two cases may exemplify this reversal of facts and the blaming of an alleged and yet never existing so-called "Russian aggression" and Mr. Putin's dream of reinstating the boundaries of the "Old Soviet Empire." In the summer of 2008, after Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a tiny province that had won its independence in the 1990s, and Georgian artillery had killed Russian peacekeepers, the Russian army entered and chased the Georgians back into their own country. Since then, Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, very much to the chagrin of the U.S. and the U.N.  

The aggressor was not Vladimir Putin but Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili, a megalomaniac and now stateless sociopath who had been brought to power in 2004 by one of the US-engineered color-coded revolutions, at the time under Bush II. By annexing those two provinces, Georgia as an ally to the West would have enlarged its national territory and moved NATO-friendly terrain closer to Russian borders, despite a tendency in those provinces that broke from Georgia in the early 1990ies for ethnic and other reasons, to instead ally with Russia. The same applied to Transnistria and Moldova, both of which show interested in joining the Russian Federation. Thus, the question arises, astutely asked by Pat Buchanan, why in a time of peoples' self-determination, the U.S. (and the transatlantic community for that matter) support every ethnic group or fledgling republic that secedes from Russia, but considers any ethnic group or little state moving toward Russia a threat, a traitor, and insinuates it could only take place because of Russian imperialism? The only viable answers are:

 

• A paranoid and untenable Russophobia endures in Washington.
• A misconceived strategic design for a post-Cold War global setting dominates national security circles.
• An astounding lack of any sound political philosophy of international relations abounds among Washington's elites who to this day impose their unreasonable concepts on the White House and the U.S. State Department. 

 

 The distorted narrative on foreign affairs and Russia's role is kept alive by the paranoid Washington elites at all costs. It became tangible in early August this year when the honorable Vice-president Pence, speaking in Montenegro, the tiny nation in the Balkans that had just become the newest member of NATO. He repeated the apparent national security lies about Russia vis-à-vis Georgia. As was to expect, he also replicated the falsehoods about Ukraine to justify the offensive deployment of forces and missiles to Poland and the Czech Republic, and other Eastern European Nations. In Ukraine, President Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which had ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia. He bloodlessly seized the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow's Black Sea fleet was present by Treaty. The West alienates Russia and Putin now over a reaction it could have easily foreseen, had it only pursued just and wise policies that acknowledge the existential interests of other global players. I commented on all this in more detail in several earlier blog entries ('Russophobia - Achilles' Heel of US-Russia Relations of February 17, 2017, https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2017/02/us-russia-relations-russo-phobia.html and 'Ukraine - Another Failure of Western Interventionism' of February 22, 2015, https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/02/another-failure-of-western.html).

 

Not Russia, but the U.S. has become the primary threat to world peace and global stability through aggressive policies of indifferent power projection that neglected legitimate geopolitical and geostrategic claims of other international players. Over the last two decades, the old buffers of the Soviet Union toward the West, most of all Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and not to forget the Baltic States, have all become full-fledged NATO members; with only minor diplomatic resistance from Russia and clearly no intent to invade those countries or reinstate the boundaries of the old Soviet bloc. It is of strategic importance for Russia and a core consideration for her national interest to keep Ukraine, an important geopolitical region that it designated the 'Near Abroad' somehow in a militarily neutral state. 

 

But the foreign relations experts in Washington do not rest contented with all the strategic blunder on the ground and in military terms. They pair their misguided policies with economic foolishness by way of economic warfare through sanction regimes that impact not only the U.S. but allies and partners in Europe and beyond as well. Just ignorant politicians could jubilee over the significant disruption of Russia's economy, the Ruble's inflation, and working "trade barriers." What they forget or perhaps willfully put on the line is the fact that the European Union is, by far, Russia's leading trade partner and accounts for about fifty percent of all Russian exports and imports and seventy-five percent of all foreign investments in Russia. From whatever angle, it sure comes at too high a price to prop Russia as an artificial enemy for one's own failed imperialism and as the scapegoat for a presidential election's unsuccessful outcome. After all, the presidential candidate herself as secretary of state had caused the blunder in cooperation with the presidential predecessor. 

The opposite of what the strategic calculus of Washington wanted to achieve is happening – not only is the global standing of the U.S. diminishing, but the hegemonic superpower harms itself in various policy fields. Putin increasingly writes off the U.S. and the West and enters into a Russian-Chinese strategic alliance. And if Washington continues to ignore and alienate Russia, the European Union and individual European countries will have to weigh their commitment to the North-Atlantic Alliance against their own economic and security interests. The latter process is what has commenced in Europe right now. It is relatively easy to comprehend that if Washington is not coming to its senses, a continuation of this policy will drive a wedge into transatlantic relations. 

 

Will President Trump be able to stand up against all these war-mongering and Russia-hating Democrats, Neoconservative Senators and Congressmen, Brass-Officer advisors, and Military-Industrial lobbyists? Will he bring home the troops from Afghanistan and Syria and end the aggressive posture of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern and southeastern Europe and the Baltic Region? After all, he was elected to complete the conglomerate of provocative, aggressive, and, indeed, unethical policies the United States has pursued in recent years.  

 

Not forget we must that the appalling course of U.S. foreign affairs policy of late runs parallel to the deterioration of internal politics in the United States. The civil war over ideas and convictions – a real culture war – is in full swing and seems to intensify day by day. Relentlessly dishonest and Trump-hating news outlets push it, above all CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and, the most abysmal and painfully foolish of all, MSNBC. The degree of disinformation and corruption is mind-boggling in its unreasonableness and almost inconceivable in its blatant immorality. The Washington swamp is real. It is so bad that certain commentators even identify an ongoing silent coup to oust Trump by the joint conspiracy of mainstream media, deep-state exponents, liberal politicians, and radical left-wing interest groups. The latter, who organize protests wherever Trump appears and carry out counter-demonstrations with the explicit aim to instigate violence, which they blame on Trump, are funded by billionaires like George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg. 

 

The pigheadedness of never-Trumpers and all those politicians, pundits, and commentators who were so wrong about Trump never being able to win the presidency seems boundless. These people give precedence to their stubbornness and political and ideological inertia over the nation's best interest. Insight into one's wrongs and judgment errors, learning from mistakes and wising up, and notions like critical self-reflection no longer count or even exist in certain people's consciousness. Instead, they are doubling down on stances that experience has proven wrong. Unprecedented obstructionism not only from the opposition party but from the GOP's ranks – the most despicable example provided by the traitor senator John McCain on the repeal vote on the Affordable Care Act – dominate the domestic political landscape. 

 

 A look into U.S. politics, not even a year into Trump's presidency, reminds one of a young and fledgling republic in some Third World region of the globe. In the previous blog essay entitled 'A Sick Republic' of July 5, 2017 (https://edwinseditorial.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-sick-republic-yeah-dude-im-talking.html), I outlined the parameters of this profoundly flawed political system and the unmatched decay of intellectual and moral political standards in the U.S., which continues to push the nation toward more violence and outright civil war. 

 

Who or what could remedy this state of affairs of division and hatred in the United States society that goes far beyond any acceptable measure a functioning republic could withstand in the long run? How can we overcome this mental tyranny of the left that denounces everybody and everything running counter to their views? How can we break the vicious collaboration of forces on the political left to remove Trump from office, even at the cost of throwing this country into mayhem and internal violent conflict? The only answer I can come up with is "success." 

 

 To improve relations and defeat obstructionism, President Trump and his allies in Senate and Congress will have to be successful in pulling off a significant tax reform for businesses and working citizens. Furthermore, they will have to push through a decisive modification of the healthcare system, in both cases with immediate and tangible results that can no longer be hidden from the public, not even by hostile news media outlets. A new paradigm in foreign and security affairs is overdue. It should feature pragmatic strategic prudence and restraint rather than globalist adventurism. The U.S. has to disentangle from the continued involvement in the Middle East and Southeast Asia and bring troops home. It should abandon regime change interventionism and come to a new understanding in US-Russia relations. These steps should enable the nation to recover and find political and social stability. 

 

The United States finds itself at a crucial crossroads at this point. The significance of the moment goes far beyond saving Mr. Trump's presidency and marks a juncture that determines the future not only of this nation but the future direction of Western civilization as a whole. 

 

Let's make no mistake. The election of Donald Trump to become the 45th President of the U.S. came at a point of existential significance as to the future course of our civilizational development. It is the defining moment of decision between, on the one hand, liberal-Marxist globalism in conjunction with cultural decadence and the rise of moral relativism in ever more secularized social milieus; and in contrast, on the other hand, the furtherance of orderly (international) relations among sovereign nations with western countries grounding their pluralism in traditional morality and a minimal nucleus of their Christian heritage. 

 

It is clear before the power of our reasoning that both opposing sides in this ongoing culture war over principles and values cannot claim the same amount of validity for how they envisage our Western-style democracies' future path. Opposing concepts in all kinds of social and political realms – immigration, the rule of law, gender and race relations, education, economics, international affairs, etc. - cannot be equally meaningful. The course of social and political 'progressivism' that we have witnessed in recent years is either the right one for a prosperous future or a pernicious concept that destroys our societies and our civilization in its entirety. Yet, who could honestly believe, considering the evidence of societal mayhem, confusion, and polarization regarding open border globalism in recent years, that cultural progressivism is the right way as we advance? 

 

It might be wise for the left to end their demonization of conservative politics and specifically of President Trump, and give the man and his program a chance to succeed. But for this to happen would require the mainstream media to stop its one-sided anti-Trump crusade and bethink their exact principal role as an unbiased and objective interface for information and dialogue between people and government. 

Furthermore, perhaps even more importantly, it will take the ceasing of obstructionist efforts from certain Republicans in Congress. Full support of Mr. Trump's by his party, whose representatives have to set aside personal vanities and sanctimonious reservations, and a constructive political opposition that recovers at least some minimal sense of fairness decency, appear to be immediate requirements for success. 

 

The period of trial and error and political and social experimentation with the radical ideas of the left, domestically and internationally, has to end. It is high time that the Washington elites and stakeholders come to their senses, intellectually and morally, and refocus on this country's common good, which is so closely related to the entire western hemisphere's well-being.

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.

A Sick Republic! (Yeah, dude, I’m talking about the U.S.)

While still claiming strategic superiority in global relations backed up by her unmatched military power, the US' political bankruptcy becomes ever more visible and undeniable. In terms of foreign affairs and international relations, the US, by desperately trying to keep its position as the sole superpower, devastated the world with its support of terrorists, interventions for regime change, and its irrational and unwarranted stance vis-à-vis the Russian Federation. Yet, foreign affairs blunder doesn't make for a sick republic. The sickness factor lies within. 

 

In domestic terms, the US society appears to have degenerated into what the ancients called an Ochlocracy, a mob reign, the intimidation of government and legitimate authorities by a specific group of people. Stunning in the US American case is that this authoritarian mob is not merely recruited from vulgar, lower-class people of the electorate, but recruits itself from all society's strata. It is made up and even led and represented by elected officials of the Democratic Party, supported by a significant number of neoconservatives, the central part of the mainstream media, and exponents of academia and the world of arts and culture. A clear indication that ill-education knows no bounds. And neither does lousy morality. 

 

The level of political illiteracy and moral inferiority is unparalleled in Western civilization's recent history. The leftist mob's machinations to reject and potentially overturn the recent presidential election results are unprecedented. Any healthy level of antagonism appears to have vanished that usually characterizes the political struggle in open societies. 

 

The intrinsic concept of the Political, namely to consider the opponent as a legitimate force that needs to be defeated for political gain and governing power, but not physically terminated, is in danger. When the political's essential character gets lost, it threatens social stability and may lead to violence and potentially to civil war. 

Let's identify and explain the significant determinants of this sick republic. I shall emphasize three essential subject matters and remedies described before a somewhat optimistic outlook may conclude this exposition. 

 

First: The deranged political mind! Large parts of the US society have forgotten or intentionally negate the prime feature of democracies, namely that governing regimes can change due to the people's decision in periodic elections. 

 

Significant numbers of the populace have lost any respect for governmental institutions, including and predominantly the presidency. The minimal deference to a governmental authority, necessary for a working political system, is missing, including disregarding the recent presidential elections' outcome. Their electoral loss so mortifies the US's political left that they are consumed by a sheer unlimited sense of hatred and destructiveness. 

 

Violence in the streets, open calls for assassination, utter baseness in language, and destructive facts dominate the reportage fabricated in the editorial offices of print and electronic media. For the most part, news outlets are no longer the medium to communicate factual information between government and people. Instead, in unprecedented fashion, they have turned themselves into distortion and ideological agitation instruments. 

 

Irrespective of political orientation, never before had a president spend his first few months in office to such a degree with his back to the wall, warding off most vicious attacks mostly by tweeting directly to the public, circumventing the largely hostile and dishonest reporting by the media. And never before had a president cope with such a degree of nasty obstructionism from the political opposition.

 

Most commentators consider some of Mr. Trump's tweets' aggressiveness to be irreconcilable with the office's dignity. But this judgment is clearly false and just another attempt to diminish his standing. Proportionality is a principle in self-defense. And self-defense is what the man does as he is reacting to an unparalleled onslaught of denunciation. 

 

The viciousness with which this man and the office he is holding has been and still is being attacked requires proper confrontation and resistance to a degree hitherto unknown. The wrong and evil must never be encouraged by inactivity or misguided leniency. So yes, indeed, Mr. Trump should continue to tweet and give the wrongdoers what they deserve.

  

Solution/Prediction: There is hope that Mr. Trump will prevail. Most of all, the fake media, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times – are virtually imploding. They will have to purge themselves and return to some measure of decency. The same applies to the Democratic Party. The silent majority of the party, which consists of decent citizens just led astray, will have to reign in and bring back sanity to the Senate and Congress's hysterical voices. On attempting to damage Trump, they brought devastation over their political movement. Beyond that, the progressive left, fascist in their strategies and violent in their means, cannot be reasoned. Since they have no arguments that withstand the lessons of history or common sense, they only understand the brutal fact of apparent political, economic, and societal defeat and failure, which has been presented to them and will continue to haunt them. The charlatanry of Mr. Obama, supported by the hardcore political left in this country, has already come to the fore and must be defeated. For, if not, this country will descend into societal chaos and violent civil war. 

Second! The globalism fallacy! The near existential struggle between the globalists and one-world government/open borders factions versus the traditional nation-state and My Country/MyCulture/My Religion First exponents has taken center stage within the US and the European Union but challenges the entire western civilization.

 

As an inheritance from the disastrous Obama presidency, the political left and the entire Democratic Party are in the tank for a globalist utopia, pursued by progressive social and cultural policies, both domestically and internationally.

 

They found their political complement in the failing governing administrations in Germany, France, and the UK. The philosophical illiteracy resting at the bottom of all this globalist nonsense is astounding. A united world republic, a one-government global system, is forever impossible for many ontological and epistemological reasons, not to speak of religion and cultural dimensions. The critical error is confusing truly globalist developments – i.e., in the economy, trade, communication technology – with a profound alteration of the general ontological conditions of physical human coexistence. For the latter by in large remain unchanged, indifferent globalism is probably the most pernicious error in the political thinking of our day and age. 

 

The nation-state (or alliances of nation-states), characterized by separation of powers and monopolization of force, is certainly reduced in its significance and transcended by the impact of globalism. However, it will persist for generations to come as the preeminent model for how people coexist together. A more elaborate blog essay on this specific aspect alone is forthcoming.

Solution/Prediction: The significance and, indeed, indispensability of borders and clear demarcations between citizens and immigrants, in short: healthy nationalism will return to the decision-making bodies of western societies. It will take time and cost a lot of pain and a tremendous waste of resources, as it already has. Still, sanity in the arrangement of human affairs will have to return if Western civilization is supposed to survive. Mr. Trump finds allies in this endeavor within the European Union, where nations like Poland and Hungary have resisted accepting the quotas of Muslim immigration imposed by the European Commission. And they have been successful as the only countries avoiding an internal terrorism problem and a shake-up of their social stability. 

Third: The disastrous foreign affairs paradigm! As the statesman is aware, nothing is more critical for prosperity and domestic stability and security than a comprehensive and meaningful foreign affairs policy that does not exhaust itself in economic profit-making and geopolitical bullying.

 

As I have shown in several of my blog essays over the past years and, alas, have been proven right by how things unfolded, the US's foreign affairs and national security policies have been catastrophic. Aside from individual instances of failure and folly most conspicuously in the general application of a flawed national security paradigm that highly damaged international relations ever since the end of the Cold War, thus roughly in the past quarter-century. The attempted Pax Americana turned out to be an utter failure, brought destabilization and terrorism to Europe, caused endless years of bloodshed and refugee crises in the Middle East, turned established political entities into rogue states, deteriorated political conditions by instigating regime changes and supporting insurgent terrorist movements, and devastated US-Russia relations. 

Solution/Prediction: The first meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin at the G-20 Summit is only a few days away from the time I write these lines. It might turn out to be the most critical meeting of the two Heads of State of these two countries in decades. What Trump has to achieve is of a tall order. In the wake of this meeting, he will have to silence the Russophobe forces in the US government and anti-Russian hawks in the Republican Party. He will have to stop the nonsense of considering Russia an enemy rather than a geopolitical rival who has to be collaborated with as a strategic partner and ally for defeating the global challenge of Islamism and assuring Western survival civilization.

  

It will be a tough challenge, but Mr. Trump needs to overcome the pressure from Congress, Senate, and the bulk of the media and put the US's foreign policy, particularly vis-à-vis Russia, on a new footing. Most problematic in this regard and posing a hurdle hard to overcome is the near-identical stance on foreign affairs espoused by neoconservatives and neoliberals. But President Trump must not fail in this endeavor as a further deterioration of international relations to the point of configuring the stakes for a new global armed conflict would be the result. 

Overall, it is going to be a colossal task for Mr. Trump to cure this republic. 

In his goal-oriented, pragmatic, and non-ideological intuitive way, President Trump has achieved a lot in the first half-year in office. The success goes mostly unnoticed as the media is more focused on character assassination rather than reporting on his accomplishments. But it is a fact that he managed to boost business and economy by decisively reducing regulations and reversing ideologically driven impositions of the former administration. Consumer confidence is up, and unemployment is down, and so is illegal immigration. A decisive improvement of the health care system and massive tax reform is imminent. Christian values are on the rebound, and the reversal of recent years' cultural decline is at least in its initial stages. 

 

What still gives a reason for concern is the president's failure to come through on the campaign promises of correcting the United States' foreign policy – reducing its overseas engagements, ending the meddling in the Middle East and the endless wars, diminishing the imperialist posture in general. Trump's recent trip to the Middle East and the Gulf States appeared to accomplish some improvement in terms of reducing the funding of terrorism and cooperation in defeating ISIS. His upcoming meeting with relevant heads of state such as the President of China and the Prime Minister of Japan, but most of all Russian President Putin, at the G-20 Summit will hopefully bring about solutions regarding the North Korean threat and lay the foundation for a new collaboration with Russia. 

Important days and weeks are lying ahead. We soon should find out if the long-overdue alterations in the United States' foreign affairs posture will occur and whether or not the sick republic has put itself on the road to recovery.

What the Hell is Wrong with President Trump and His Foreign Policy?

Without a doubt, bombing the airfield in Syria and dropping the giant bomb on the I.S. stronghold in Afghanistan demonstrates to the world that with the new President in charge, the game has changed. Trump showed that he cannot be messed with and is determined to lead and to take action.

However, in a time of cyber manipulation, with mainstream media operating as ideological propaganda tools and politics deteriorating into a madhouse of hateful obstructionism and partisan malice, reality can only be grasped by sound intuition good judgment in combination with inclusive and critical reflection. 

The so-called facts presented by news outlets, intelligence services, and congressional investigative boards too often make up facts, intentionally distort, and tailor them to political expediency. Utilitarian convenience has created a climate that condones lying and cheating, the shirking of accountability, and the denunciation and demonization of political opponents, including their opinions. Certain media outlets, the CIA, the FBI, have all lost their credibility. Nothing they present can be taken cum grano salis anymore. The primary requirement for professionally operating government organizations - political impartiality and neutrality - is no longer a given. No doubt, in many respects, the political culture in the U.S. has deteriorated to alarming lows. 

In light of all this, one has to ask who is advising President Trump and what happened to Trump's pragmatic judgment? Rhetorical excellence is, for the most part, natural talent, and Trump's plain and straightforward language might serve him well in certain respects. But how is it possible that a sitting president calls the President of another country an animal and a butcher? Somebody should advise Mr. Trump that if he makes such statements, they ought to be put in a conditional form: "If President Assad has personally ordered the gas attack, we would certainly have to consider him to be a merciless butcher, a vile individual?" 

Yet, there is no evidence that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. There is not even clear evidence that Syrian government troops used those weapons. Instead, every reasonable calculus points to the fact that the rebels exploited an air attack by a Syrian government fighter jet to release chemical substances themselves to blame the government and, at the eleventh hour, reverse the fortunes of war. Everybody knew that the government forces, with Russian support, were winning and pushing the insurgents back. Everybody knew that it would be outright insane and counterproductive for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons at this point. Not only would it not serve any meaningful purpose as conventional warfare was doing the job, but it would also turn the public opinion against the government. Who would order such a stupid move, even at the chance that the public would blame the use of chemical weapons on the rebels? 

Undoubtedly, the ideas of neoconservative hawks, dangerous madmen like John McCain or Lindsay Graham, most likely pushed by lobbyists of the military-industrial complex, have somehow found their way into the White House and have clouded the judgment of advisers and the President himself. When an American Secretary of State shows up in Russia and, as far as the government of Syria and its support by Russia is concerned, stipulates an ultimatum of virtually unconditional surrender, he leaves the Russian counterparts no room for negotiations. Moreover, he also compromised the principles of diplomatic conduct.

Aside from demonstrating to the world that President Trump is a strong leader, the reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been an unjustifiable one, strategically as well as morally. 

One of the Pax Americana's pernicious errors attempted since the end of the Cold War was the disregard for international players' legitimate strategic interests. While other global players might pretend to bow in the face of the U.S.'s overwhelming military might, it certainly does not help establish a just and balanced world order. It only accomplishes further destabilization and weakening of international relations and increases the animosity toward the United States in many parts of the world. 

Trump raised hope and was elected not the least for the essential turnaround in U.S. foreign affairs policy after the dreadful Obama years. With Trumps premature and gullible reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, his excessive interpretation of U.S. national security interests, and his further alienation of Russia, he is about to betray the expectations for the urgently needed change in U.S. foreign policy along the lines of stopping regime change and nation-building around the world. Instead, what he should pursue is cooperation with Russia and China and the partners in Europe and NATO to fight the real threat – radical Islam and its affiliated terrorist organizations. 

At this juncture of events and less than three months into Mr. Trump's presidency, the only hope remains that the President and his advisers and foreign affairs counselors come to their senses. Mr. Trump must live up to his campaign promises and disentangle the U.S. from the endless involvements in unjust wars in the Middle East, stop regime change interventions, and overcome the Russophobe stance in U.S. foreign affairs.