TRUMP STOPPED THE GLOBAL ELITES MARCH TO "THE END OF HISTORY"

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"
Hagel

What German philosopher Hagel meant is that wisdom (symbolized by the owl of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom) comes only after the fact, that is, true understanding of events and historical developments often comes only in hindsight.

Those who had believed the US presidential election will be a 50-50 battle, or in fact Harris will triumph, they never walked the grounds and they paid attention only to the leftist media. The size and energy of the crowds at Trump's rallies as he criss-crossed the swing states has been a clear indication of what's to come. But main stream media refused to share this with their mainly liberal viewership. This election has definitely shown the power of the three traditional megahorns of public opinions are no more. Mainstream media, Hollywood and celebrities, and polls are no longer trusted by one half of the country. Recall how Straits Times said Taylor Swift's endorsement will win the election for Harris.

Mainstream media are hosted by an echo chamber of progressive and radical liberals. No less than Jimmy Kimmel has admitted the various corporations meet regularly to co-ordinate what to propagate which they then shamelessly parot exactly same catch words or phrases in order to emplify their narratives against Trump. They have been doing this since Trump walked down that elevator in NY back in 2015. The only exception is Foxnews. Although CEO Paul Ryan is the ultra Trump-hater, the talking heads at Fox do not follow Kimmel's lead. Even Fox's Bret Baer, althought a Trump-hater, does not follow the herd. He has his own hard-hitting narratives. Harris enlisted a host of Hollywood stars and celebrities in the last two weeks of campaign. Her interview by Oprah Winfrey is a faux meet-the-press when campaign finance report revealed she was paid US$1,000,000 to host the meet. It was in reality a campaign ad which makes a mockery of journalistic integrity on the part of money-faced Oprah. Almost all the polls predicted a very close contest which did not seem to project the reality on the ground. Some suggested there was a fear factor on the part of respondents to identify themselves as Trump supporters and this impacted the poll results. A better indication can be seen in what is known as a 'neighbour' poll. Respondents are asked who they think their neighbour will vote. Such 'neighbour' polls have shown higher scores for Trump. The polymarket whale, a French trader who calls himself Théo, who won US$43m betting on Trump, said he relied mainly on 'neighbour' polls.

In the aftermath of Trump's convincing win in the election, comes a ton of explanation to what was incorrectly predicted to be a closely contested fight. If you listen to the media megahorn, Harris lost because voters are racists, sexists and misogynists, which of course are reasons swallowed by the guillible liberal mass. Others say Harris had a messaging problem. It's surprising two anti-Trumper media big names have more internal reflection. Jon Steward said he was wrong about Trump's chances of winning but accepted he won it fair and square. Bill Maher told the the Left "you're are brats, and you're snobs, and people don't like that". My own explanation is Harris lost because 15m Democrat votes went missing.

Kishore Mahubani, (short video above) Singapore's diplomat extraordinaire, said "Only a deeply troubled society will elect a person like Donald Trump as president". He was commenting on the degradation of the infrastructure, economies and standard of living of the US, and pondered why did Americans elect Trump. I have great respect for Kishore in many of his views, especially his forte on geopolitics. How can he be so wrong here. Surely MAGA is about rebuilding America. Does Kishore not understand Trump's priority? Heaven forbid if Kishore thinks Harris is better-placed to lead US with her open-border policies, pro-criminal inclination, socialists economics of someone branded as on the furthest Left of the Democrat Party, and pro-Ukraine war stand. Surely Kishore can see the chaos of US in the four years under Biden-Harris?

I brought Kishore into this blog to show how dangerous the Leftist media can be when one of Singapore's brightest son holds a view on Trump apparently coloured by mainstream media narratives. In the Singapore Inc silo, this must surely be the shared view. What we are seeing happening in US and other Western countries is a tectonic ideological battle. I would expect someone like Kishore to enlighten us with a big picture view that makes sense. I mean, do you understand what this woke culture is all about, this transgenderism, non-binary. pronouns, tampons in boys' restrooms, men in women sports, etc. Why open the floodgates for un-vetted illegal immigrants that include criminals and all sorts of bad hats. Why the mad rush to vaccinate everyone with untested vaccines. Democrats are not stupid folks. Of course they know the chaos their policies are creating. It begets the question why.

There is a very big picture narrative behind Trump-Harris battle that can help to make sense of our troubled world. It is something that I had wanted to blog about for a very long time but held back because it is way beyond my pay scale. I had hoped some super intelligent locals in academia or corridors of power can stand up and shine some light to enlighten the nation. Given this vacuum, allow me to express my thoughts on a very tough idea I have in my mind as I summon to the best I can some deep philosophical concepts.


The End of History

As a philosophical concept, the "end of history" contemplates the endpoint of ideological evolution, where society reaches its highest form of governance and moral order. Rooted in Hagelian and Marxist dialectics, it examines the possibility of a "final" stage in human political, social, and ethical development—where struggles for political legitimacy and ideological supremacy cease because society has reached an "ultimate" form of organization that satisfies human needs most fully.

Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hagel (1770-1831) introduced the idea that history moves in a dialectical progression of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Starting off with thesis which is the established order, or status quo, that is the current state or a system or society. Antithesis invariably arises, that is, opposing forces or ideas. This contradiction creates tension or conflict, challenging the validity or dominance of the thesis. The struggle between the thesis and antithesis, give rise to synthesis, which is a new, higher level of understanding or organization. The conflicts are resolved and society transforms the original state.

Human history is propelled by this cycle of contradiction and resolution. A society transforms from one form of organisation to another over time. Example from libertarianism to liberalism to conservatism, to communism, to capitalism, etc.

In Hagelian philosophy, dialectical progression is thought to drive history and human consciousness toward greater rationality and freedom. Each stage builds upon the previous one, with contradictions driving both thought and social order forward. This dialectical process continues until it reaches an "end" in an ideal state of freedom and rational self-awareness. For Hagel, history reached its "end" with the development of constitutional monarchies, which he saw as the ideal balance between freedom and order.

For Karl Marx (1818-1883) dialectical materialism, that is, material conditions — particularly economic relations — drive social and political change. Each stage of economic history (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) contains internal contradictions that ultimately lead to its downfall and replacement by a new stage, culminating in an "end" in communism. Thus for Marx, history ends with universal communism.

In 1992 American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his book "The End Of History And The Last Man" in which he drew on the Hagelian idea but replaces the "end' state with liberal democracy. He argues that liberal democracy and market economies address humanity’s core desires for recognition, freedom, and economic security, marking the highest achievement in ideological evolution. For Fukuyama, history ends with the universalisation of Western democracy.


Liberalism vs Conservatism

In the context of US the underlying ideological struggle is between the Democrats (Liberals) and the Republicans (Conservatives). US is basically a two-party system. The Libertarians are just a side-show, often times viewed as a spoiler, garnering 1% or 2% of the votes. The only time when Libertarians had some high profile was in 1992 and 1996 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran as an independent. Their platforms overlapped ideologically and Perot managed to attract 19% of the votes in 1992 as Libertarians flocked to his campaign.

Despite their differences, liberals and conservatives often share a number of core values, even if they prioritize them differently or interpret them in contrasting ways. Let me go somewhat detailed into the key aspects so you can properly understand what the battles between Democrats and Republicans are all about.

* Belief in the Rule of Law:
Both sides generally believe in having a legal framework to govern society that covers protection of  individual rights, and ensuring justice.
Liberals often emphasize reforming laws to address inequality and social justice, while conservatives tend to prioritize preserving existing legal systems and order.

* Commitment to Democracy
Both value democratic processes - free and fair elections, the right to vote, elected officials are representatives of people.
Liberals focus more on expanding voting rights and ensuring inclusivity, while conservatives may emphasize voter integrity and protecting the system from fraud.

* Individual Rights and Freedoms
Both affirm the importance of individual freedoms - freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
Liberals often prioritize rights related to social and cultural issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights), while conservatives emphasize the protection of traditional values and rights related to property, family, and religion.

* Economic Opportunity
Both sides generally support the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to improve their economic circumstances, pursue prosperity, and succeed through hard work and initiative.
Liberals advocate for a stronger safety net and policies to reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation and government programs. Conservatives tend to emphasize free-market solutions, lower taxes, and minimal government intervention.

* National Security
Both recognize the importance of national security and protecting the country from external threats, whether through military defense or intelligence agencies.
Conservatives may prioritize a strong military and defense spending, while liberals may focus more on diplomacy, alliances, and multilateral approaches to security.

* Tradition vs Progress
Both value progress, whether it's in terms of social change or technological advancement.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the value of tradition, stability, and preserving established institutions. Liberals may be more focused on challenging traditions and advocating for social reforms to address modern challenges.

* Social Responsibility
Both believe in social responsibility - well-being of one's community, helping the less fortunate, and contributing to the common good.
Liberals tend to socialise  welfare, healthcare, and support for marginalized groups. Conservatives often stress the role of individuals, families, and private charity in fulfilling social responsibilities.

* Patriotism and National Pride
Both take pride in their country and value national identity, culture, and history.
Conservatives place more emphasis on national pride, military achievements, and symbols like the flag, while liberals focus more on the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality in the nation's history.

* Social Justice
Both care about fairness and justice.
Liberals support systemic changes to address inequality in society, while conservatives may prioritize justice in the form of maintaining law and order, individual responsibility, and equality before the law.

* Environmental Stewardship
Both cares for the environment.
Liberals advocate for more aggressive environmental regulations and government action to combat climate change. Conservatives may focus on market-based solutions and the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.

The quarrels of the two sides revolve around how best to achieve these shared goals, with liberals emphasising systemic reform, social welfare, and inclusivity, while conservatives emphasising personal responsibility, tradition, and limited government intervention.

The two-party system unfortunately, is a fundamental weakness of the US since a constant is the flipping of policies with each change in administration.

The compromise that establishment politicians on both sides have been able to reach in the past 240 years of their history to achieve their goals has gotten more difficult. That ability to compromise started crumbling in the last 20 years with the advent of Barrack Obama and his identity politics. The Democrat Party has swung very much to the Left as the progressives take control. They are in effect now a Socialist party pushing full Marxist policies and members are growing more extreme, which in our part of the world we used to call ultra. Remember the ultra-nationalists of UMNO that wanted to arrest Lee Kuan Yew during the Separation period?

The Democrat Party of today is no longer the party of John F Kennedy whose short reign was fondly referred to as "Camelot", an association with the romance of King Arthur, a story set in high moral idealism. You must have been living in a cave if you say Liberals today love their own country. There are two key conservative values that stand in the way of Liberal machinations for total socialist control -- Christianity and the right to bear arms.

The smarter Liberals are now slowly red-pilling. Ex-House members Robert F, Kennedy Jnr and Tulsi Gabbard, and Senators Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema left the party because it's values have changed. Others include Jeff Van Drew, Tricia Cotham, Francis Thompson, and Mesha Mainor. As I write, the latest Liberal to come out and said so is from Hollywood. Popular actor Michael Douglas said "..the Republican Party is now the party of the people, the Democrat is the party of the elites."


Neo-conservatism and Brzezinski’s Doctrines

Liberal tendency to put emphasis on human rights and diplomacy, and overly cautious about military intervention and assertive foreign policy were seen as weakness after WWII when the West had to confront communism during the Cold War. The weakness of liberalism was most strongly felt during the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), a time that saw Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis of US Embassy at Tehran.

The 3 pillars of neoconservatism are:
* Spreading democracy, particularly in authoritarian regions, often using military intervention if necessary. This will lead to stability and aligns with U.S. interests.
* Have a robust military presence globally, advocating for preemptive actions to deter potential threats.
* Practice unilateralism to project U.S. sovereignty. Multilateral institutions limit American power and influence.

Neoconservatism had the most impact during George W. Bush presidency which saw US interference in the Middle East. Those heavily influenced by neoconservative thoughts are called neocons which include Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Bolton. They are well-known war mongers.

Neoconservatism as an idea is not partisan. Republicans McCain and Graham worked for Obama where the two Conservative senators were seen in the famous video giving Ukranian military leaders a pep talk promising US support. Diplomat (D) Victoria Nuland was deeply involved in the Colour Revolution of Ukraine. (D) Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in the Arab Spring managing American interests.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's national security advisor. His doctrines shared some neoconservative goals but they were more nuanced: His was a balance-of-power approach -- contain Soviet influence through strategic alliances rather than aggressive democracy promotion. Brzezinski preferred diplomacy and multilateralism when feasible, supporting interventions only if they were essential to maintaining global stability. He often opposed the outright use of military force to reshape political systems. In his book The Grand Chessboard (1997), Brzezinski outlined his vision for maintaining U.S. supremacy by strategically influencing key regions in Eurasia, advocating that the U.S. establish a stable presence without becoming bogged down in prolonged conflicts.

Neoconservatism and Brzezinski's Doctrines have been the guiding lights of American foreign policies in the past several decades be it a Democrat or Republican presidency. To Kishore's questions, it is the reason why they are building aircraft carriers even though their bridges are falling down and other infras crumbling.


Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is about open markets and less state control. It is a political and economic ideology where popular words bandied about are free-trade, privatisaton, deregulation, fiscal austerity, and market efficiency. This was the agenda championed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While Reagan made a remarkable economic recovery for US after the disaster under Carter, Thatcher had mixed results in the UK as she had considerable time consumed in her great battle with the powerful and polarising figure of Arthur Scargill, the powerful union leader who led the National Union of Mineworkers. (I was stationed in London for a short while at the time and was stunned at the vulgarities of the expletives of Scargill on the streets, for I was brought up imbued with this image of the "English gentlemen").

Neoliberal reforms were endorsed by famous economists of the time - Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Other champions of neoliberal reforms were the European Union, WHO, IMF and World Bank.

Unfettered neoliberalism has tremendous downside - increase in income equality, reduced public social support, environmental degradation, and political instability. How so?

Neoliberal policies prioritise corporate interests and market outcomes. Corporations and top tier employees (big income earners) benefit at the expense of lowered wages for the other employees. Fiscal austerity sees reduction in social welfare programmes (healthcare, education). Deregulation often leads to less protection for environment. Concentrating economic power in the hands of a few leads to distortion of political processes and reduce accountability.


New World Order, One World Government, The Great Reset

What the heck are these all about? The three terms are complex and overlapping concepts that have evolved over time and often used loosely by global leaders, economists, conspiracy theorists and the general public.  They are focused on global governance, economic restructuring and international co-operation but they were grown out of different ideological and historical contexts.

New World Order as an idea arose out of the ashes of WWI and WWII when world leaders felt a need for some international system to prevent future conflicts. In 1991 President George WH Bush popularised the term when he mentioned it to refer to a world where the U.S. and allied countries would promote peace, security, and global economic stability.

The term One World Government arose sometime in late 20th century which was marked by the establishment of several international institutions, such as UN, IMF. It was seen as a move toward a more unified global governance. However, these bodies do not hold sovereignty over individual nations.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), introduced the concept of The Great Reset in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turmoil it caused. The Reset aims to rethink global capitalism by prioritizing sustainable development, reducing inequality, and addressing climate change. Schwab’s proposal includes a transition toward what he calls “stakeholder capitalism,” where companies focus on social and environmental responsibilities alongside profits.

This is not to be confused with the "Reset" button that Hillary Clinton gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2009 which was a symbolic gesture by Obama admin to re-establish diplomatic relations strained during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.

Due to the vague ideologies, the secretive nature of groups that discussed these international issues, such as "think tanks" and policy groups like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, high profile Davos summits attended by billionaire elites, corporate capture of various international institutions, weird and prophetic sound bites from people like Bill Gates and Schwab himself, such as the timing relating to the outbreak of infectious deceases, the infiltration of governments and "you will own nothing but be happy", and the relentless efforts to force onto the world the Covid-19 vaccination, climate control programmes, and the Pandemic Treaty, all these led to public suspicion of ill-intent by a closed powerful and wealthy group.


Neoliberalism and WEF

The above lenghty primer is necessary so you can appreciate the evolution of ideologies to get to where we are at today.

Neoliberalism has bred a small group of people whose wealth staggers the imagination. As of 2024, 1% of the world holds 45-50% of the total global wealth. 63% of new wealth generated in the last two years went to the 1%. This wealth distribution trend is driven by factors like tax advantages for the wealthy, such as lower taxation on capital gains and inheritance in many countries (zero tax in Singapore), as well as financial and market policies and globalization that benefit wealth holders.

Wealth concentration and distribution of this scale for the 1% weakens economic balance and limits social mobility, fueling inequality in access to resources, education, and healthcare globally. Human history has shown this state of affairs cannot last. How and when the powder keg will explode is up to speculation, but explode it will.

This then explains the greatest anomaly that no one is asking. Neoliberalists are the unfettered Capitalists. The Liberals of today in all Western countries have turned into cultural Communists. Capitalism and Communism -- “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” (Rudyard Kipling). So why are neoliberalists - the Capitalist titans of industry, the global elites, the multi-billionaires, why are they working with cultural Communists, whether in the form of Democrats in US, Christian Democrats in Germany, the Conservatives or Labour in UK, French Macron's Republique, or Trudeau's Liberal Party? 

Backtrack above I said Marx's "end of history" is Universal Communism - East, West, North and South must turn Red. Notice above I mentioned also Liberal's multilateralism. Now you get the picture for the crazy idea of open borders, mass immigration and multi-culturalism. There is alignment of ideology with neoliberalism for a globalised economic order.

WEF is the operating front, the mechanism for the universal aspirations of cultural Communism embeded in the various Liberal, Labour, so-called Republique and other political parties in Western countries.

Neoliberalist billionaires that are fully behind WEF include Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus-Michael Kühne, Larry Fink, Marc Benioff, Michael Bloomberg, Ray Dalio, Jeff Bezos, Mukesh Ambani, Jeff Bezos, Jim Breyer, Patrice Motsepe, Larry Page, Sergey Brin (Singapore resident), David Rubenstein, Jack Ma, Lauren Powell (Steve Job's wife) and many many more from that special 1%. Elon Musk attends occasionally to share his views on technology stuff.

The money power of neoliberalists, often under the guise of philantrophist-capitalism, captures supranational institutions like WHO, media, various state agencies like FDA and CDC, and certainly buying politicians either the old fashioned way, or through lobbies or revolving doors, a strategy that allows them a foot in the door to shape and implement policies in countries all over the world. The end game is protection of their interests and preventing the inevitability of that powder keg of disgusting wealth from exploding.

When ideologies of neoliberalists and WEF align, is when money power and political power aligns. It does not bode well for the 99%. If you were in the 1%, wouldn't you want to board the vessel that gets you to a place where your monetary and political power can be safely ensconced? Plus the bonus of the various international co-operation in economic activities already captured?

Neoliberalists and WEF (the countries that back it) now see The Great Reset as their "end of history".


Enter Donald Trump

Like most people, I had misunderstood Trump. My perception of him is this big bully Gargantuar that tells the poor chap "You're fired". Trump has such a powerful presence in the room. In my mind I see him in the mould of Lee Kuan Yew. The only other person that had such a powerful presence to me is Jack Lord, (real name John Joseph Patrick Ryan) who played Steve McGarrett in the TV series "Hawaii Five-O". It was probably after two years into his presidency when I saw Trump delivering on his campaign promises that I began to realise the persona portrayed by media was agitprop. Yes those media corporations owned by the neoliberalists.

Now you can see in 2016 Trump stumbled onto the neoliberalists and WEF (aka Liberals) in bed together. It was no storm in a teacup of illicit affairs, but a moment of seismic consequence. Obama had brought America to the neoliberalists' "end of history" cliff. All it needed was for Hillary Clinton to tip Americans over. I have consistently shared the opinion that Trump's entrance on the political scene was providential. Because it forced all the neoliberalists and bought Democrats, as well as RINOs, to surface and attack Trump at a time when the demographic is not yet to their advantage. For decades, American institutions in public schools and universities have churned out indoctrinated Liberals. (Why do you think you see all those Pro-Palestinian protestors in colleges.) There is not yet enough Liberals to tip the scale. The only way for Democrats to win in the votes is cheat or bring in illegal immigrants.

In our modern history, almost all the momentous social upheavals all over the world, can be framed by a big picture narrative of evolution of ideologies. The current chaos in US and Western countries has its causation in the neoliberalists push towards their version of the "end of history". In the US, Trump's landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election has frustrated neoliberalists' ambitions. Unless you belong to the 1%, you ought to celebrate.

On the way to the White House, Trump has annihilated the powerful neocon dynasties of the Republicans - the Bush, Remsfeld, Romney, McCain Chenney and Bolton. There are still some RINO neocons in the party. He has recently announced neocons Niki Haley and Mike Pompeo, his ex-Secretary of State, will not be invited to join his new team. With big names out, Trump has effectively gotten rid of the war-mongers in the party. Unless you are not for world peace, you ought to celebrate.

Trump used a lot of his personal resources in 2016. This election, his campaign team has worked on support from the ordinary guys, which is much similar to Obama. Trump still has support from billionaires, but these do not seem to be neoliberals, rather they are those committed to conservative values. The Republican Party under Trump truly has flipped to the party of the ordinary people. There exists an anomaly though. Republican values of open market, tax cuts and small government may work against ordinary people. It's left to be seen.

As a Singaporean, I'm terribly disappointed Kishore basically asked "who would want to vote a man like Trump". Kishore either belongs to the 1% or he is unable to see beyond the discredited mainstream media. I wonder if Kishore is aware of the "Trump Effect" -- positive reactions almost immediately after his election victory:

* The Taliban announced they want peace with America.
* Putin said Western civilisation is not an enemy, they will still use USD..
* Putin takes Trump's aim for peace in Ukraine seriously.
* Mexico announced they will secure their border
* Qatar told Hamas leaders to leave
* President Xi said he wants co-operation with US
* EU proposes to use US LNG
* Houthis are stepping back
* Hamas calls for immediate end to War with Israel.

I wonder if Kishore has seen Trump's economic plans listed on his website and has tried to guess what is it that Harris has in store for America.

I also wonder if Kishore is aware Trump has already initiated three taskforces to:
* make America healthy again which includes investigating into the Covid-19 vaccine fiasco (headed by RFK Jr).
* investigate into government wastage (headed by Elon Musk)
* investigate Democrat-UN NGO pedophile networks and locate 325,000 missing unaccompanied children who crossed the Southern border.

Does Kishore think that Harris could have accomplished any of these? Why do leaders of the other countries react they way they do? Because like me, they see in Trump a doer. He delivers what he says. It would be a real concern if Singapore policy makers think like Kishore.

Addendum to the Trump Effects:

* Saudi royalty, Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, asked Trump to complete what he started in the ME, a reference to Abraham Accords peace deals.


This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.