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!

Islam, Western Society, and the US' First Constitutional Amendment

The immigration of considerable numbers of Muslim populations from the Balkans and the African continent to European countries in the decades after World War II has led to significant collisions in cultural and political terms. Enclaves of Muslim populations in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom demonstrate resistance to substantial stakes in Western democracies, such as the rule of secular law and societal values and principles.

Despite the current literal invasion of refugees and immigrants into Europe and the United States from the war-torn regions of the Middle East, despite the rise of the Islamic State (I.S.), and despite the recent invigoration of terrorist Muslim extremism in Western nations (France/USA), the European Union and the current U.S. administration by in large still abide by their policies of misguided globalism and sanctimonious humanism. When will people understand that misguided and self-righteous humanism is nothing but an inhumane blunder that eventually strikes back with atrocious brutality and multiplies the harm it initially intended to prevent? 

  

In the face of violent Islamic extremism, besides the astonishing errors of open border policies and amnesties for illegals, the most striking political blunder appears to be the equal treatment of Muslim communities and the Islamic faith in Western societies. This author has wondered for almost a lifetime why, to his knowledge, neither political and religious representatives nor pundits or scholars seriously addressed the real reason for why Islam has such limited appeal to open and democratic societies and is hard, if not impossible, to integrate. Islam's primary problem is that it has not yet developed a dogma of separating religion from the State. What is still missing in the Muslim creed is something similar to the two-swords or two-kingdoms doctrine that Christendom has articulated, reaching back to St. Augustine and his De Civitate Dei. 

When Augustine distinguished the Civitas Dei, the City of God, and the Civitas Terrena, the City of Men, or the Earthly City, he laid the foundation for the separation of Church and State. By separating the heavenly and spiritual realm from the temporal earthly domain, Augustine paved the way for developing the dualistic Christian doctrine that sees the Church control the spiritual kingdom. In contrast, the State is in charge of worldly affairs. While the spiritual realm stands hierarchically higher and allows the Church to influence politics and societal matters, the doctrine excludes the City of God's enforcement upon the City of Men. In other words, a Christian theocracy would collide with the dogma of the religion itself. The wisdom of this corresponds with Jesus' sayings, "My kingdom is not of this world" (as stated in John 18:36) and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). On the basic tenet that the Kingdom of God awaits the Christian believer in a different world, one of divine and spiritual nature, it is proper and suitable to establish and submit to earthly authorities in Man's worldly existence. In the vein of this accepted wisdom of western thinking, the nation-state concept evolved and spread across the globe, with its inherent idea of a separation of powers and monopolization of force by secular political entities.

Unlike Christianity, Islam does not separate religion from politics. Attempts to reconcile Islamic tenets with secular governance are barely visible. Sharia law is prevalent, which means, strictly speaking, that divine law is imposed upon human conditions. Jurisprudence in Islam is merely the expansion and application of Sharia in worldly circumstances. In other words, in its most profound sense, Islam is a religion that aims at enforcing the Kingdom of God upon the Kingdom of Men. The objective is to establish the Ummah, the community of the true believers, of all Muslim people, sharing the same ideology, culture, and beliefs, dictated and held together by (divine) Sharia law. 

I stipulate two propositions to be of utmost importance and have to be imposed upon the Muslim creed if we seriously envision peaceful coexistence. 

(1) The Muslim creed itself must develop a doctrine for the separation of Church and State. The realization of this requirement pertains to the Muslim dogma itself. Although it would take a long time and its fulfillment is highly unlikely, it must be attempted and urged forward. It is astounding that no serious attempt at it has ever been made or demanded, as far as I know.

(2) The Muslim populations in Western countries have to declare their allegiance to the secular code of governance and decry any attempts to override it by religious law concepts. This second proposition pertains to the Muslim communities in western democracies as they become an ever-growing part of societies based on the Christian heritage. This condition should materialize through declarations of leading representatives of Muslim communities on the one hand; and individually, by every member of such societies when he or she is signing citizenship papers on the other hand. Refusal should lead to immediate expulsion to the country of origin or a Muslim country of choice.  

  

Islam must find a straightforward solution to the separation of Church and State and care for a division between the ecclesiastical and civil sphere, the divine and secular realms. Until accomplished, any representative of this religion will be in collision with either their Muslim faith or the political environment of the Christian-based society they want to prosper. As long as Islam hasn't met proposition (1), proposal (2) as outlined above must come into effect to avoid inner conflict for the individual believer while at the same time enhancing the safety of society overall. 

This circumstance does not impair or curtail religious freedom. Christian societies usually grant other faiths by allowing them the free exercise of their religion. As shown, the necessity for this type of action emerges from the dogma of Islam's religion itself. 

The current outcry in American-Muslim and progressive quarters in Western countries demonstrates the want for proper erudition on significant subject matters of political and cultural affairs in this country and beyond. 

Concerning the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the discussed aspect highlights the general problem of equal treatment of all religions in society and a political system primarily founded on Christianity's intellectual, cultural, and social heritage. How can this heritage, as it reflects itself in the customs, laws, and cultural configurations of this very society, be upheld if religions whose traditions and spiritual principles are in many respects irreconcilable with the Christian host environment are treated equally? 

It brings to the fore a weakness in the First Amendment that the founders did not foresee when they adopted this amendment on December 15, 1791. We can assume that in those early years of the new republic, the legislators could not have imagined that this new nation's Christian roots would ever be discredited or put in doubt. They could not have anticipated the deranged hubris of progressivism, the cultural illiteracy of American politicians and presidents, the want of suitable erudition on the populace's part, and the arrogant audacity of certain minority groups.

We can amend constitutions and modify amendments to a Constitution. Both have to be adjusted so that its founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles can live on under the ever-changing conditions of worldly existence.

Truth in Life and Politics

In the classical theory of knowledge, epistemology, we consider truth to be the correspondence between judgment and reality, between what we think is the case and what really is the case. Finding truth involves perception and reasoning on the judging individual's part and pertains to a moral aspect, namely the human volition to seek the 'truth and nothing but the truth.' Is there a sincere intent to attain truth, or is there a mere desire to mold the perception of reality according to one's values and preconceived notions of politics and social affairs?

Social and political realities are not perceived by a bloodless technocratic entity, but rather by a human being socialized and educated, subject to emotions, and driven by interests and value dispositions. This specification of the human condition must have made Friedrich Nietzsche come up with his famous aphorism: "There are no facts, only perceptions." In other words, only if we cleanse our perceptions from those ingredients that could taint the objective perception and cognition of reality can we attain the facts of life. No human is infallible. And particularly when it comes to judging complex contexts of our existence, this ideal postulation might only remain an approximation. Notwithstanding, all human beings can potentially purge their judgments of truth-hindering additions.  

 

 To become aware of that verity, let alone overcome it, requires a certain level of philosophical erudition and capacity for critical thinking. It necessitates an attitude shaped along with the literal understanding of the term philosopher to be a friend (Philo) of truth/wisdom (Sophia). Not everybody has to be a philosopher, but everybody can avail of a particular philosophical inclination in the sense of being curious for truth and wisdom. 

But where can we still find the attitude of giving precedence to truth and objectivity over pride, prejudice, preconceptions, personal vanities and benefits, individual or group interests? Obstinacy seems to abound in all spheres of life and human interactions. Assertiveness prevails over insight gained from wrong decisions, painful experiences, and errors of judgment. 

To avoid admitting erroneous judgment and thus hurting one's sense of pride, doubling down on premises that have proven wrong and destructive appears to be the business of our time. In our day and age, the dictates of political correctness and affirmative action turn the notions of truth and objective realities into a laughingstock; facts don't count anymore; instead, only false perceptions serving unnatural agendas. In politics and personal lives, cognitive operations appear to satisfy self-absorption and personal gratification primarily. 

I need not mention examples here. The readers can find them in their personal lives and take a blunt look at their social and political environments. The scope of the described phenomenon ranges from gender policies to gun control issues, from the media's general corruption to the individual dishonesty of journalists and pundits, from the rock-bottom perfidiousness of political campaigning to the intellectual and moral decay that is taking place on the campuses.

Who and what is responsible for this deranged approach that seems to dominate so many hearts and minds? 

It owes to the disregard and lack of classical liberal arts instruction, as it has become ubiquitous in almost all fields of education. Only studying the history of ideas and the grand traditions of human thinking can provide for a substantial foundation of human identity. Solely this type of instruction is devoid of the ideological notions of contemporary social and political life. It is getting acquainted with this tradition, on whatever level of intellectual prowess and educational commitment, that instills a sense of morality that resides in the human being's conscience rather than the dictate of external expediency. This type of instruction and the knowledge that comes with it forms autonomous judgmental abilities and reflective competence that strives for objective insight and truthfulness rather than the satisfaction of individual or collective vanities and interests. 

While of significance for every human being, it is of paramount importance for scientists, politicians, physicians, judges, educators, military, and law enforcement personnel; in short, for all those who impact and hold responsibility for human's well-being.

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.

Is the U.S. turning into an "Evil Empire"?

In transparent and objective consideration, there can be no doubt that the creation of ISIS, the destruction of Libya, the devastation of Syria, the destabilization of Ukraine, and the deterioration of the relationship with Russia owe to the atrocious foreign policy of the U.S. under the incumbent administration of Barack Obama. While some politicians and pundits seem to be wiser in hindsight and acknowledge the committed blunders, others remain stubborn and unconvinced. Of course, among the latter, Mr. Obama himself, who diverts from his dismal record on foreign affairs by focusing on subordinate problems like global warming and gun control. 

During these disastrous policy decisions, in my blog entries of 2011 (Libya) and 2013 (Syria), I warned against supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. Here is what I wrote in August of 2014 after ISIS appeared on the scene and introduced a new concept of radicalized warfare: "If further damage to global affairs ought to be prevented, a swift turnaround is needed to bring American (and Transatlantic, for that matter) foreign policy to its senses. Given Mr. Obama's stubbornness, hubris, and conceitedness, there is little hope things will get better in the two years he has left in office, unless his ignorance and ideological prejudice will be reined in by the Senate, by Congress, and by a significant majority of the American public."

 

This swift turnaround in American foreign policy did not occur; instead, the administration doubled down on its failed policies, heavily protected by the bulk of the mainstream media and supported by significant representatives of the Republican Party in both Senate and Congress. The ever more hardening and downright ridiculous stance of senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham should disqualify them for serious foreign affairs business forever. In the place of substantial critique and the building up of public pressure on the Obama administration to reconsider their approach to world affairs, the pernicious propaganda against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin continued and intensified. In depicting Assad as a murderous tyrant and "New Hitler" of the Middle East, the Obama administration propagated regime change under the pretense that Assad had used weapons of mass destruction on his people. The media could only present questionable evidence that the Syrian people needed liberation from their oppressive government and president. Barely a critical word mentioned on the murderous and illegitimate conglomerate of insurgents, who even received financial and material support. 

The Pax Americana the U.S. attempted to impose upon a large part of the world turned out to be an utter failure. But what to do about the chaos in the Middle East, large sections of Africa, the Caucasus, Russia relations, and China? The candidates lining up for the presidential elections do not raise much hope. Whoever watched the recent debates of Republican presidential candidates from an international security and foreign policy standpoint must have been terrified! Among the candidates, the only exception to the incumbent administration's hawkish policy against ISIS was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who just suspended his campaign and dropped out of the race. The polls' leading candidates - Cruz, Rubio, and even Trump - all espouse a somewhat interventionist stance. With differences in detail, they seem to be willing to continue the past and present Obama policies. 

Who and what could bring the United States to its senses? At long last, who will reject the pernicious post-Cold War foreign policy approach to shape international affairs and implement a global security order exclusively according to American principles and interests? And in the context of the ongoing race for the White House: Where is a president who is not a petty partisan politician, but rather a statesman, acknowledging the legitimate national interests of other global players and, above all, of his country's European allies?

If the U.S. is not able to steady itself from within, it will be on its way to become in reality what the headline formulated as a question. The result most likely being that more or less the entire world will eventually unite to bring down the imperialist Leviathan.

Guns in Private Hands - What to Do With the Second Amendment?

One major characteristic of our open societies, organized along with the principle of separation of powers, is the monopolization of force. In essence, this means that the individual citizen foregoes his/her natural right to use their physical strength to establish or upkeep and restore justice. Citizens transfer this responsibility to the enforcement authorities of the State, tasked to protect citizens and preserve and restore justice wherever and whenever required.

Every developed nation establishes a legal order that is also just as it allows for individual freedom and personal responsibility. It opens its monopoly of force toward its citizens only to a clearly defined extent. The State does this in acknowledgment of the fact that no monopoly of power can ever be absolute. Potential situations for individual citizens might occur. At least temporarily and specifically in the initial stages of threat and danger, the monopoly of force is not immediately present to protect and prevent harm from taking place. The possibility of such situations is why a (Nation-) States' monopoly of force restricts itself and allows for individual (self-) defense in clearly limited circumstances.

Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership, within clearly prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force. The monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for a nation's most efficient internal safety and security. The United States Constitution offers proper evidence for this claim to ensure the military forces' effectiveness was one objective the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind. The constitutional intent to provide for "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," together with the vastness of the country and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements provided for generous authorization as well as demand to have firearms in the hands of private citizens ever since the inception of the republic.
 
Beyond the U.S., history proves that the more totalitarian a society becomes, the more restricted is the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. There were no such laws, for instance, in the Soviet Union or Hitler Germany.

It appears that with the infiltration of radical elements of Islamism by migration as well as the potential threats arising from homegrown terrorism, the desire to own guns and enable themselves to self-defense is significantly increasing among citizens not only in the United States but also in Europe. The rising numbers of applicants for gun ownership on both sides of the Atlantic speak volumes and give testimony to that fact.

While the enforcement of existing gun legislation and every measure conceivable to prevent unjustified use of weapons from happening ought to be supported, individual politicians and political organizations' campaign to restrict gun ownership to the extent even of confiscating guns is misguided. It is an ideologically motivated move that blames radical terrorist violence on wrong causes and expects remedy from ill-conceived measures.

I've made clear throughout my blog entries that there will never be good practice without good theory. If decision-makers have no clue about the structures and intrinsic designs that underlie the complex challenges we face in our political life, we can never expect anything profound in their policies and approaches to solutions. Procedures will be a permanent process of trial and error and will always be reactive, constantly corrected after and by the fact, after making some new damaging experience. One good example of this is the current challenge of radical Islam in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre. The non-existent strategy against Islamism and radical exponents of it at home seem to exhaust itself in the tiring repetitive claim for stricter gun laws. It is interesting to observe how the unfolding of a painful reality pushes politicians toward more meaningful and proper policies, step by step leaving behind ideological and partisan prejudice. After the San Bernadino incident, everybody could watch Mr. Obama's embarrassing attempt to talk himself out of his misjudgment and to justify his doubling down on the failed policies that led to such catastrophes.

In the end, hopefully, he, as well as many others, will arrive at efficient policy arrangements an excellent theoretical foundation in human and political affairs would have suggested to them in the first place.

Immigration - US and Europe Governed by Lunacy

If one wants to find evidence for the headline's adequacy, one only has to look at the issue of immigration on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. Buried under would-be compassion and alleged humaneness, the self-destruction of Western culture is pushed forward at a mind-boggling pace. 

Can Europe Survive This Invasion? Asks Pat Buchanan in a column of November 9th, pointing out that the wave of immigrants released on Europe are not Christians, but Arabs, Africans, and Muslims. If the E.U. keeps its borders open, the immigration of hundreds of thousands per year will alter European civilization's face, if not destroy it. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the immigrants (ab)using the reckless immigration policy of the current administration come with an increasing tendency from different cultures and religions.

What underlies these suicidal tendencies is the increasing disregard for the political's ontological principles - to paraphrase the title of Carl Schmitt's major work. The real insanity has to be seen in the softening, if not negation of the significant parameters - territory, citizens, legal order - of the nation-state, combined and held together by a separation of powers and a monopolization of force, as one of the most outstanding political achievements of occidental rationalism. While globalist tendencies in communication and commerce transcend the nation-state's sovereignty, the significance of borders and a clear legal demarcation between citizens and non-citizens by way of immigration legislation is indispensable for the cohesion of societies that determine and organize themselves within the confines of the nation-state concept.

It is worth noting that, although the constitutional dimension of separation of powers is not necessarily equally developed and embraced everywhere, the nation-state concept has been victorious throughout the world. Even Islamic societies organized themselves following the western model and established nation-states, by which they conduct their domestic and international relations. As such, they are present at the United Nations or any other international forum for that matter. 

The western world's pernicious tendency to self-destruct appears to be driven by egalitarianism and democratic utopianism. But to renounce the great past of its history of ideas will come at the cost of its demise. In a blog I wrote back in 2010 (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2010/08/right-becomes-wrong-arizona-immigration.html), on the occasion of a regretful decision of a federal judge to turn down a specific immigration law in Arizona, I commented in-depth on the difference of what I termed the traditional versus the cosmopolitan approach in politics. 

The misunderstanding, if not total ignorance, regarding the vital ontological implications of human existence, undoubtedly result of inadequate socialization and education of elites as well as the public, by and large, is to be blamed for the terrible and highly damaging domestic as well as foreign policies carried out by most political entities of the West in recent decades.

Once the 'Political' is no longer considered based on human affairs' inner ontological conditions but is considered something to be arbitrarily constructed, we reach the state of delusion and ignorance that characterizes the policies of current political administrations in both the U.S. and Europe. 

I have provided reflections on Western society's philosophical challenges in a comprehensive essay entitled "Asymmetry and Western Society - Culture-Critical Reflections," in Schroefl/Cox/Pankratz, Winning the Asymmetric War, Peter Lang Publishers, Frankfurt 2009, pp. 23-34.)

It is high time to counter the suicidal tendencies as displayed in the United States and the European Union's immigration policies. The survival of Western Civilization, on the whole, is at stake.