The West didn’t just lose geopolitical dominance — it surrendered its institutions to technocrats and its culture to radicals.We are living in an extremely exciting time in human history with four epoch changing power struggles going on concurrently. The actors can only be seen for what they really are when one understands what these struggles are all about. Often, where objectives converge, these actors ride on the tiger's back for mutual benefit which complicates identifying where they stand.
Against the backdrop of a decaying liberal world order, four simultaneous power struggles are reshaping the global landscape:
1. Liberal globalism seeks to consolidate authority under a transnational, rules-based order.
2. Technocratic elites are capturing domestic and international institutions, marginalizing democratic oversight.
3.A progressive cultural revolution is challenging traditional norms under the banner of equity, identity, and justice.
4. In response, a populist-nationalist counter-revolution is rising to reclaim sovereignty, tradition, and local control.
The Liberal World Order (LWO):
This is the term for the system of international relations and institutions that came into being after WWII. It was shaped primarily by the United States and its Western allies. The purpose was to create a stable, prosperous, and democratic world through institutions, cooperation, and economic openness. It was hoped to avert great-power wars and raise global living standards.
Key features include:
1. Rules-Based International System
Nations are expected to follow agreed-upon norms and laws, particularly in areas like trade, security, and human rights. Institutions like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) were created to provide forums for resolving disputes peacefully and cooperatively.
2. Multilateralism
Emphasis on cooperation among states through international organizations (e.g., IMF, World Bank, NATO). A belief that global problems require collective solutions and that strong alliances and partnerships are preferable to unilateral action.
3. Free Markets and Global Trade
Promoted economic interdependence through free trade, capital flows, and open markets. The Bretton Woods system (1944) laid the foundation for global economic management, aiming to avoid the chaos of the interwar period.
4. Democracy and Human Rights
Promotion of liberal democratic values, including civil liberties, representative government, and individual rights. Though not always consistently applied, the U.S. and its allies often linked foreign aid, trade access, or security partnerships to democratic norms.
5. U.S. Leadership and Security Umbrella
The U.S. played the role of security guarantor, especially in Western Europe and East Asia, through military alliances like NATO and bilateral defense treaties. America's military and economic dominance provided stability and a hegemonic anchor for the system.
6. Containment of Communism (1945–1991)
During the Cold War, the liberal order was partly defined in opposition to Soviet-style communism. The Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, and containment policy were part of the West’s strategy to support liberal democracies and market economies.
7. Post-Cold War Expansion
After 1991, with the Soviet Union's collapse, the liberal order expanded eastward, incorporating former Eastern Bloc countries into NATO and the EU. There was a belief in a "unipolar moment", where liberal democracy and capitalism were seen as the end point of history (as per Francis Fukuyama).
That was kind of the Truman World we baby boomers lived through. Against all good intentions, internal and external pressures have been tearing the system apart over the decades.
Decay of the LWO:
Those who speak of the decay of the liberal world order identify deep erosions of the norms, values, and power structures that defined the LWO. It is not just about decline in power, but about credibility, coherence, and control.
Key specifics of this decay:
* Western Hypocrisy and Selective Application of Liberal Values
Double standards in promoting democracy and human rights. E.g., Western support for authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia or Egypt contradicts liberal rhetoric. The 2003 Iraq War, waged without UN backing, undermined faith in a rules-based order. The liberal order's claim to moral superiority is tarnished by torture scandals (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo) and military interventions with questionable outcomes.
* Breakdown of Multilateralism
The U.S. and others increasingly bypass or ignore international institutions when inconvenient. Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, WHO, and Iran Nuclear Deal. Rise of unilateral sanctions, trade wars, and "America First" or "Global Britain" nationalism. Growing trend of countries weaponizing interdependence (e.g., tech bans, supply chain blockades).
* Internal Decay: Political Dysfunction and Populism
Rise of illiberal democracies within the West (e.g., Hungary, Poland, even democratic backsliding in the U.S.). Polarization, distrust in institutions, and populism erode the appeal of the Western model.
Brexit, the Trump presidency, the Capitol riot (Jan 6), and the declining faith in U.S. elections are symptoms. The liberal order promised inclusive prosperity, but economic inequality and wage stagnation led to mass disillusionment.
* Economic Failures of Globalization
Global trade lifted many out of poverty (especially in Asia), but hollowed out Western middle classes. The 2008 financial crisis exposed systemic flaws in Western capitalism. Wall Street was bailed out; average citizens bore the brunt. This shattered confidence in the Western economic model's fairness and resilience.
* Rise of Alternative Models (China, Russia)
China's state-led capitalism has delivered rapid growth without democracy — a direct challenge to the liberal assumption that capitalism and democracy are twin pillars. BRICS and SCO offer diplomatic and financial alternatives to Western-led structures like the IMF, World Bank, and SWIFT. Russia's assertiveness, including the war in Ukraine, is not just a military challenge but a rejection of Western-defined norms.
* Erosion of Western Dominance
The liberal order was underpinned by Western (especially American) power — economically, militarily, culturally. China's economy (by PPP) has surpassed the U.S. U.S. military dominance is now constrained in multipolar contexts. Cultural dominance is less assured in a fragmented digital world. Demographic shifts, economic stagnation, and debt burdens further undercut Western influence.
* Decline of Institutional Legitimacy
UN Security Council is seen as outdated, with five WWII victors holding veto power. IMF and World Bank governance structures still favor the U.S. and Europe despite global power shifts. Emerging powers like India, Brazil, and Indonesia feel marginalized, undermining legitimacy.
8. Fracturing of Shared Narratives
There is no longer a single “universal” narrative about how societies should be organized. Competing ideologies: liberal democracy vs. techno-authoritarianism vs. religious traditionalism. Even within the West, there’s incoherence: some want to expand liberal values globally; others want to retreat inward.
Singapore diplomat extraordinaire Mahbubani wrote of the decay of the system in his book "Has The West Lost it?". Although he has it as a question for the book, in his various talks, Mahbubani used to say "the West has lost it" as a matter of fact. Very briefly, Magbubani's views are:
* The West assumed it would remain dominant forever and failed to adapt to the rise of Asia.
* It preached openness but practiced protectionism when its dominance was threatened.
* It excluded rising powers from shaping global rules, breeding resentment and alternatives.
* The liberal order decayed because it was rigid, self-righteous, and blind to its own flaws.
The decay of the liberal order is not a single event but a multifaceted unraveling — of credibility, unity, legitimacy, and power. It stems as much from internal contradictions as from external resistance. As Mahbubani suggests, unless the West recognizes the new global balance and reforms the order to be more inclusive and less hypocritical, the world will move on — with or without it.
Kishore Mahbubani does not frame the decay of liberalism in terms of “globalist elite capture” in the way Western populists or nationalist critics do (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Douglas Murray, or parts of the Trump movement). However, he does address overlapping concerns — especially around Western hubris, institutional hypocrisy, and the exclusion of rising powers — but from a geopolitical realist and postcolonial perspective, not from a culture war angle.
In my humble opinion, critics of the LWO in many instances misrepresent reactions to as symptoms of, the decay. They also fail to recognise the underlying four power struggles that are currently in play that's shaping the messy developments going on in the world.
1. Liberal globalism seeks to consolidate authority under a transnational, rules-based order
The first power struggle is about the ideological overreach of LWO as the system metamorphises from Pluralist Liberalism to Progressive Universalism. Liberal ideology tends naturally towards universalism - by design. It sees liberty, equality, and rights as not just Western values, but human values. This might be the most profound cause of decay but it is lost on those pontificating on the geopolitics. It is a point Easterners have been making of the West trying to impose their ideas of democracy on third world countries.
Why Liberalism leans towards Universalism:
* Liberalism is built on the fundamental idea that all individuals, regardless of origin, race, religion, or class, possess inalienable rights - to life, liberty and property, and equal moral worth. This naturally leads to a universalist outlook where rights and freedoms are not bound by borders, culture or tradition.
* Liberalism priotises the autonomous individual, not tribal or collective identity. This tends to push liberal thinkers to apply rights and norms universally, not just to their own society.
* Liberals are born and bred out of the crucible of 18th century Enlightenment with a worldview that REASON is God, that there are universal truths about human nature and justice. Liberty, equality, consent are RATIONAL principles applicable to all societies.
How does Universalism manifest:
* Politics - push for democracy, rule of law, free speech.
* Economics - Global capitalism, open markets, WTO norms.
* Culture - Human rights activism, gender equality campaigns, minority rights promotion, etc.
* Foreign policy - promoting democracy abroad, internationalise liberalism.
Are you beginning to see why the world has been evolving the way it does in the past several decades?
The post-war order was originally about rules, peace, trade, and state sovereignty. But over time, the liberal order evolved (or mutated) and we see the creep into universalism with new ideas like:
* open borders
* gender and identity ideology on a global scale
* redistribution across nations (e.g. climate reparations).
* weaponization of global crises (Climate, Pandemics) - This is of most current development. Climate change became not just a scientific issue but a political instrument, often framed in apocalyptic terms to justify (a) Centralized regulation, (b) Degrowth narratives, and (c) Massive wealth transfers. Pandemic response was used (in many countries) to suspend civil liberties, enforce surveillance, and elevate the role of unelected global agencies.
This universalism is not neutral, and it often becomes contested when it encounters sovereignty, culture, religion, or realism. These ideas are not universally accepted, yet the institutions that push them often treat them as moral imperatives rather than subjects for debate. This shift from pluralist liberalism to progressive universalism alienated conservatives, nationalists, and traditionalists across the globe — and in the West itself.
Criticisms of Liberal Universalism is along these lines:
* Cultural imperalists imposing Western norms on non-Western societies.
* The West is blind to context ignoring history, religion, or local values.
* Contradictory, or hypocritic defence of "pluralism" whuile de-legitimising traditional norms.
* Justification for intervention in another state's affairs, including wars.
These are the stuff experts on geopolitics and civilisational seers like Mahbubani write about.
The liberal world order stopped being “liberal” in the classical sense (freedom, sovereignty, markets) and morphed into an elite-driven, progressive-technocratic project that dismissed dissent as ignorance, nationalism as racism, and sovereignty as backwardness. This push for Progressive Universalism is what some people term the "New World Order". Ideologically, the logical conclusion becomes the "One World Government".
One World Government
The core critique from many skeptics of liberal globalism is while it does not overtly abolish national governments, it bypasses, neutralizes, or overrides them through a web of supranational institutions, multilateral treaties, and soft law frameworks. And the underlying question becomes:
Is the endgame a one world government? Or is it simply elite-driven global coordination?
1. Intent: Not “One World Government” — But Global Managerialism
Liberal globalists (whether in Davos, Brussels, or Washington) rarely talk openly about a one-world government. Their language emphasizes:
* “Global governance”
* “Shared challenges require shared solutions”
* “Multilateral cooperation”
* “Rules-based international order”
The intent, in their view, is not tyranny, but stability:
* Prevent wars through diplomacy and institutions (e.g. UN, NATO)
*Tackle climate change, pandemics, and terrorism through cross-border regulation
* Harmonize finance, trade, and digital systems for efficiency and predictability
But this technocratic worldview ultimately centralizes authority in:
* Unelected bodies (EU Commission, IMF, WHO, etc.)
* Expert panels (WTO dispute bodies, climate science boards, etc.)
* Global financial institutions (World Bank, BIS)
The Result : national governments become enforcers of globally set rules, not originators of them.
2. Effect: A De Facto One World Regulatory System
While there’s no formal “World Government”, liberal globalism is building a regulatory latticework so tight that:
* Nations can no longer act fully autonomously
* Elections matter less, as policy paths are constrained by treaties, accords, or international norms
* Dissident states (e.g., Hungary, Poland, or Brexit-era UK) face economic or moral punishment
This system includes such mechanisms and their purpose and control design:
* UN treaties and compacts -- Set global norms (e.g., migration, climate) Bind domestic policy, even when "non-binding"
* IMF/World Bank conditionalities -- Control debt and fiscal policy. Push privatization, austerity, ESG requisites.
* International courts (e.g., ICC, WTO, ECHR) -- Enforce rules & values which undermine domestic legal sovereignty
* ESG frameworks / global finance -- Shape business & national priorities. Penalise dissent from climate/equity agenda.
The Effect : Loss of meaningful sovereignty — not through conquest, but through institutional seduction and dependence.
What is the endgame?
There is no single master plan, but the trajectory points toward a post-sovereign world governed by:
* Global institutions setting the rules
* Nation-states acting as regional administrators
* Citizens voting only on pre-approved policy lanes
This model appeals to:
* Technocrats - who trust expertise over democracy.
* Corporations - who prefer predictability and scale.
* Idealists - who want to erase nationalism in favor of universalism.
So as you can see, we have all sorts of people willing to ride on the backs of tigers.
2. Technocratic elites are capturing domestic and international institutions, marginalizing democratic oversight
From Bezos to Musk to the architects of algorithmic finance, today’s technocrats have achieved wealth at a velocity and magnitude far beyond that of oil barons or railroad tycoons. Enabled by globalization, network effects, and financialization, their ascent marks a transformation in how value is created and captured—through code, not coal. Together with old wealth of industrialist families, these massive wealth gave rise to philantro-capitalism get increasingly channeled into vehicles for advancing liberal, cultural and political agendas, often without democratic accountability.The technocratic elites—typically highly educated, skilled professionals in tech, finance, consulting, government, and academia—gained enormous wealth over the past few decades due to a powerful combination of economic structure, state policy, globalization, and technology. Here’s a breakdown of the key forces that made them wealthy:
1. The Rise of the Knowledge Economy:
In the post-industrial era, knowledge, code, algorithms, and data replaced factories and labor as key value drivers. Technocrats (engineers, data scientists, investment bankers, policy designers) became the high priests of the economy.
2. Technology and Software’s Winner-Take-All Nature:
Tech platforms (Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple) created network effects — the more users they had, the more valuable they became. A handful of technical founders and early employees gained stock options and equity that ballooned in value. Marginal costs are near-zero in digital goods, allowing massive profits with very few employees.
3. Financialization and Deregulation:
Since the 1980s, the economy shifted toward finance and capital, away from labor. Technocrats in finance (quants, hedge fund managers, investment bankers) could generate massive leverage on capital using complex instruments. Deregulation (especially post-Reagan/Thatcher) allowed more rent extraction and asset inflation.
4. Globalization:
Global supply chains moved low-skilled jobs abroad (manufacturing, assembly), reducing labor bargaining power in the West. Meanwhile, tech and financial elites in wealthy countries sold software and financial products globally, expanding their markets and profits.
5. State Backing and Policy:
Governments subsidized elite industries - Defense contracts fed Silicon Valley (e.g. DARPA → internet, GPS). Monetary policy (e.g. low interest rates, QE) inflated asset prices. Bailouts and tax codes favored capital gains, not wages. Technocrats often designed these policies, reinforcing their own class advantage.
6. Credentialism and Gatekeeping:
Technocratic elites tend to be credentialed from elite institutions (Ivy League, Oxbridge, Stanford, etc.). These networks form closed loops of influence: policy, media, finance, and tech all circulate the same class of people. Barriers to entry rise - even jobs in journalism, NGOs, or public service require elite degrees.
Technocratic elites gained wealth not just because they were smart or innovative—but because they operated in systems that magnified their skills and shielded them from downside risk. They built, managed, or manipulated the very infrastructure (digital, financial, or regulatory) of the modern economy.
The technocratic capture of institutions:
This is a major, though less visible, reason for the decay of the liberal world order. While liberalism promised government by the people, technocracy quietly replaced this with governance by experts — shifting power away from parliaments and publics to bureaucracies, central banks, international organizations, and specialized agencies.
How all this evolved:
1. The Roots: Post-War Managerialism (1945–1970s)
After WWII, Western governments embraced technocratic planning to rebuild economies and avoid fascist/populist chaos. Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations were founded to stabilize the world with rules and expert knowledge. Domestically, bureaucracies expanded — welfare states, regulators, central banks — run not by elected officials, but by career civil servants and policy specialists.
The result: We see the goal of Efficiency, stability, depoliticization tradef-off by early erosion of democratic deliberation.
2. Neoliberal Shift and Globalization (1980s–2000s)
The Reagan–Thatcher revolution deregulated markets, but paradoxically expanded the power of central banks and global economic institutions. Free trade deals (e.g., NAFTA, WTO), financial liberalization, and privatization were designed by technocrats, not voted on by citizens. Supranational organizations like the EU Commission and WTO became rule-making machines, often immune to national democratic vetoes.
The result: Markets globalized; governance did not. Democracy was bypassed, not destroyed.
3. Rise of the Expert Class and “Policy Over Politics” (1990s–2010s)
Universities, NGOs, and think tanks began supplying technocratic elites who circulated through:
* International organizations
* Philanthropic foundations (e.g., Gates, Soros Open Society)
* Government advisory councils
* Major law and consulting firms (e.g., McKinsey, PwC)
Language of the day shifted from “government” to “governance”. Policy decisions are now framed as technical, not moral or political (e.g., carbon credits, monetary policy, pandemic response).
The result : Expertise was elevated, democratic judgment downgraded; Dissent was reframed as ignorance.
4. Crisis Acceleration: 2008, COVID-19, Climate Governance
2008 financial crisis showed how central banks and financial technocrats ran the global economy — without voter input or consequence.
COVID-19 pandemic expanded the power of: WHO, Public health agencies, Big Tech–government coordination (censorship, mandates)
Climate governance now operates through: ESG investment frameworks (e.g., BlackRock), Central bank green mandates, Transnational carbon taxes.
The result: In each case, decisions were made by unelected expert bodies in the name of crisis — with minimal public debate.
5. Deep State Bureaucracy and “Permanent Government”
Elected leaders now enter office constrained by:
* Regulatory frameworks
* International treaties
* Legal rulings from global courts
* Bureaucrats, intelligence agencies, and interagency task forces often outlast elected administrations and steer policy.
The Result : A permanent class of officials and advisors who govern regardless of elections. Critics call this the “deep state” or “administrative state.” (Trump was stuck with this Liberal class that sabotaged him at every turn in his first term. In his second term, a wiser Trump carried out massive dismissal as a surgical removal of this cancer.)
Technocratic capture didn’t destroy liberal democracy — it hollowed it out. In the name of efficiency, global order, and expertise, power drifted into the hands of a transnational managerial class. The liberal world order, once built on democratic legitimacy, now sustains itself through bureaucratic continuity, not popular consent — and this is the real reason why it is decaying, with all respects to Mahubani and his peers.
3. A progressive cultural revolution is challenging traditional norms under the banner of equity, identity, and justice.
Identity politics began as a call for inclusion; it has become a theology that overrides liberalism’s own foundations — and in trying to save the village, it burns the republic.It's a “Progressive Cultural Revolution”
What it is, where it came from, and why it is hollowing‑out the liberal order:
There has been a cultural revolution going on in the West and most people do not see it for what it is. It is a revolution that has been in gestation for decades and the flashpoint where it came to life started in the US with Barrack Obama. This revolution is a serpent with three heads -- wokeness, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and trans-activism.
Woke :
It is an African-American vernacular started in the 1930s which had the meaning "being alert to racial injustice and systemic oppression. In 2014 a white policeman fatally shot a teenage black youth in the city of Ferguson, >issouri. The teenager was shot 6 times despite he had his hands up. Violent protests erupted and police reacted with equal brutality. The Ferguson shooting crystalised Black Lives Matter Movement and "Hands Up Don't Shoot" slogan. By the 2010s, 'woke' became politicised and is used differently.
The Left (Liberals - Democrats): Woke means being conscious of and actively opposing injustice.
The Right (Conservatives - Republicans): Woke describes overzealous political correctness, virtue signalling, identity politics taken to extreme, imposing progressive values on others, moral arrogance. The Right sees it as performative progressivism and a threat to traditional values of free speech.
So "woke" is a moving target from a call to awareness to become a cultural flashpoint that reflects deep divisions in how societies understand justice, identity, freedom and power.
DEI :
In the analogy of a dining table, "Diversity" is who's at the table; "Equity" remove barriers so all can be at the table; "Inclusion" is ensuring everyone's voice is heard at the table.
The Left: DEI is not about quotas or lowerng standards. It's fairness, effectiveness and belonging.
The Right: DEI is affirmative action and a threat to meritocracy and free speech, it is divisive, polarising and discriminatory, mostly against the Whites..
Trans-activism:
This refers to advocacy for the rights, dignity and inclusionof transgender people, ie people who don't feel their gender identity differs for the sex by birth. This has consequences in terms of stigman and discrimination,healthcare access and social inclusion (sports, workplace, schools etc)
The Left: Sees it as a broader fight for social justice. The Left emphasises autonomy, identity and lived experiences. Sees it as similar to struggles for gay rights or civil rights.
The Right: Sees it as another "ideological overreach' (gender ideology). It undermines children's safety, women's spaces and free speech.
Intellectual DNA of the ideology of the cultural revolution (1960s → 2000s)
Thousands of miles away in Singapore, we look at the crazy stuff of wokeism, DEI and trans-activism going on in the West, and wonder at the meaninglessness of it all. But there is actually a lot of intellectualisation behind it which drives liberals to become victims of enlightenment overdose. From afar we can see the self-referential nature of progressive thought -- always recalibrating but rarely grounded.
It has its origins from Civil Rights to Critical Theory (1960s–1980s). The Civil Rights Movement pushed for legal equality and inclusion. In time, from academia came a new radical critique that states “Equality under the law isn’t enough — power is embedded in culture, language, and institutions.” What this means is legal reforms alone (like civil rights laws or constitutional protections) do not eliminate oppression. Critical Theory reframed oppressions as :
* Cultural (norms, values, media)
* Linguistic (how we speak, define identity, express power)
* Institutional (schools, courts, police, government agencies, corporations)
What follows is not easy to understand. If power hides in the deep fabric of society — not just in laws — then to achieve “justice” or “equity,” the following must be done:
* Expose and deconstruct status quo institutions (e.g., police, universities, media, language norms).
* Reeducate society about hidden power (via anti-racism training, gender theory, etc.)
* Reconstruct society around “equity” — enforced outcomes, not just equal treatment.
This leads to a moral-political demand to “Dismantle the structures of oppression” — even if they appear neutral or legal on the surface. Does the crazy destructive Executive Orders or the billions of tax dollars spent on bewildering woke programmes by Biden make sense now?
Once you believe power is systemic and invisible, you are morally justified (or even obligated) to tear down the status quo. That’s why activists often call for the abolition of:
* Police - Defund the police
* Traditional family models - promote pro-abortion, anti-Church, child abuse, go pedophilic, etc
* Capitalism - favour instead socialist collective economics
* Merit-based education - Forget about merit. Job application, promotion or university places to be determined by DEI. Now you understand why Biden chose Kamala Harris for VP (she's minority pseudo black) and why a low level Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown can get to sit in the Supreme Court (another minority - woman + black), why the military prefers to recruit feminists instead of the alpha males.
* Cis-heteronormative culture - Long form is cisgender heterosexual normative. (Cisgender means your gender identity matches the sex assigned at birth; heterosexual means a person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex; normative means socially accepted or seen as normal). This is our traditional culture where people are born both cisgender and heterosexual as normal. Progressives say this model discriminates the LGBTQ+++++ people. Behind this mumbo-jumbo are three theories:
- Critical theory - A school of thought that critiques and seeks to challenge power structures, idologies, and social systems. This started in the 1920s in the Frankfurt School. It seeks to change society by exposing oppression, inequality and domination especially in areas of racism, capitalism, patriaarchy, colonialism, media and ideology. In short, it is a lens to examine how poer works in sociaty and how systems uphold justice. So what you don't like, then you know how to change it.
- Queer theory - It challenges norms around gender, sexuality and identity. This emerged in the 1990s our of feminism movement and LGBTQ+++ studies. Questions how society enforces binary norms. It is a way to question traditional ideas of gender and sexuality - and how they are socially constructed and politicised.
- Privilege theory - some are inherently advantaged by race/gender and so we see the questioning of white-supremacists leading to white-discrimination.
What began as a critique of unfair systems become a new system itself — one that enforces ideological conformity through moral authority, not open debate. It has pivoted from reform to revolutionary activism or radicalism. The wolf does not ask permission to howl. It eventually find its way to its wild nature.
This is where liberalism and progressivism diverge.:
Classical Liberalism is all about individucl rights, equality before the law, tolerance of disagreement, rule of law, and reform through process.
Cultural radicalism is about wokeism, group identity justice, equity of outcomes, suppression of “harmful” ideas, moral reinterpretation of law, and deconstruction of foundations of traditions.
So you can see the Democrat Party in the US is riding on the tiger of the cultural revolution of progressivism and it is now supporting values no longer appropriate for the classical liberals -- such as protecting rights of criminals and illegal immigrants.
When the Progressive Liberals say “Equality under the law isn’t enough — power is embedded in culture, language, and institutions.”, it is more or less the same as what the late popular Conservative thinker Andrew Brietbart said "Politics is downstream of culture." What they both mean is politics (power) reacts to culture. Capture the culture, and you capture power.
In essence, the cultural mess the Progressive Left is creating in the U.S. is no different from the Cultural Revolution of Mao Tse Tung's "The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (无产阶级文化大革命). And while Mao, Karl Marx and Lenin created class warfare by splitting society into two classes, the Proletariat and Bourgeosie, to gain control, Obama's identity politics split the U.S. into numerous classes.
The Obama inflection point (2009‑2016)
Barack Obama did not invent the ideology, but his presidency mainstreamed it. He acted as midwife when he gave radical academic concepts a centrist stamp of legitimacy and inserted them into federal rule‑making.
Obama's major cultural reform polities:
* In Federal bureaucracy (2016) - Title IX (sexual harassment and assault in campus). He threatened loss of funds if schools denied students bathroom access by gender identity. So boys who identify as girls can use girls' bathroom.
* In Symbolic politics - A post‑racial president paradoxically 'shifted the goalposts' - if racism persists even after electing Obama, the problem must be structural, not attitudinal.
* In Executive orders - He issued Diversity mandates for federal contractors, DOJ “implicit‑bias” training, school‑discipline “equity” guidelines.
* In Cultural signaling - Media framed dissent as moral failure; corporations adopted “best practices” to avoid being the next viral target.
EFFECTIVELY IT ALL STARTED WITH OBAMA!!!
So why did Obama do the midwifery for the cultural revolution? What political benefits were there and what is the political endgame? Let me explain and it will all become crystal clear. Back in the days of Obama era when all and sundry in Singapore establishment, and everyone that I know of, sang praises of Obama, even to this day, intoxicated by his oratorical prowess, I had already formed the view his policy on identify politics will lead the U.S. down the rabbit hole. So here I am putting thoughts to paper so belatedly, something I had wanted to do year after year.Here’s why he did it, and what political benefits it served:
* Personal Ideological Alignment:
Obama was intellectually shaped by progressive academia. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. His worldview obviously shaped by mentors such as Derrick Bell, founder of Critical Race Theory in U.S.. In his memoir Dreams from My Father, he reflects deeply on race, identity, and power. Although he did not fully endorse radical theory, he internalized the idea that America’s institutions carry systemic racial and cultural bias, even when laws are fair on paper. All these are very apparent in his various speeches.
In 1980s Obama worked in Chicago as a "community organiser" for Developing Communities Project, a church-based initiative. This involved grassroots mobilisation, coalition-building and local empowerment -- hallmarks of organising strategy. Obama never studied directly under Saul Alinsky, the famous pioneering political theorist and author of "Rules for Radicals" which became foundational text for grassroots organisers. Alinsky was a communist. You can assume "Rules" as akin to Mao's "Red Book". Like many Liberals, Obama was deeply influenced by Alinsky's ideas and approach. The brilliance of Obama is that whilst he sharpened his ability to frame social issues and racial issues, he was able to repackage in universal, centrist language as he rose nationally. So to those intoxicated by his oratories, he came across as a cool and balanced guy. Obama, the master of Deceit. He stands for exactly the same stuff of radicals in Congress such as Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Jmaal Bowman, Pramila Jayapal, Jasmine Crokett, etc, all of these radicals speak like thugs and none can compare to the polish and charm of Obama.
* Political Strategy:
Obama faced two political challenges — and the cultural revolution helped him solve both.
- a. Unifying a fractured Democratic base - The old Democratic coalition (labor unions + working-class whites) was breaking apart. He needed a new electoral base which he created from a coalition of identity, namely:
- Educated progressives
- Young urban voters
- Racial minorities
- Women and LGBTQ+ communities
The language of “hope and change”, inclusion, and equity helped tie these groups together under a shared moral cause.
- b. Protecting elite control while appearing radical - Obama’s true base — like most post-Clinton Democrats — was Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Ivy League technocrats. He saved the banks in 2008. He expanded surveillance, drone wars, and corporate power. But to deflect criticism from the left, his administration leaned into progressive symbolic politics:
- DEI programs in federal agencies
- LGBTQ+ inclusion and gender identity recognition
- Emphasizing “systemic racism” even under his own presidency.
Did I just describe his 'true base'. So who were his 'false base' -- who were the useful idiots? Master of Deceit.
Result: Economic elites kept control, while the culture war created the illusion of radical progress.
* Moral Shield and Control Mechanism
By promoting cultural revolution from above, Obama and the Democrats:
- Framed dissenters as bigots or reactionaries
- Gave bureaucracies a moral mission beyond law or policy (moral policing).
- Ensured that government, media, corporations, and universities self-regulated in line with progressive orthodoxy.
This strategy turned moral absolutism into institutional policy — without requiring major legislative change. A master class act!!!.
OBAMA'S ENDGAME
The de facto goal was long-term progressive hegemony. If his 8-year term gives him enough time, Republicans will be locked out for decades in American politics. He would have :
* Cemented identity-based voting into a reliable majority.
* Made cultural resistance seem immoral and illegal
* Enshrined equity, DEI, and social justice in Courts, Schools, Military, Corporate HR, Government agencies. There was no way Republicans can crawl back in once all these are normalised, institutionalised and regulated.
Obama made that process feel inspirational. He created the framework for a cultural revolution through bureaucracy, but he made one big mistake, something that I have consistently mentioned in past writings. He does not yet have the demographics to go for it. The liberal population is not yet the majority!
And sitting in the wings bidding her time was Hillary Clinton. She did not study under Alinsky but interviewed him as a subject for her senior high thesis in 1969. Alinsky was so impressed with Clinton he offered her a job. She rejected the offer and went on to Yale University. During Bill Clinton's presidency, her thesis on Alinsky "There is only one fight", was sealed by Wellesley College. In 2001 this was made public. It seemed she was very much influenced by Alinsky's ideas in her early thinking, but chose reform under institution rather than street activism. In latter years, her progressive thinking became apparent.
Hillary Clinton famously said: “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” Now you understand the meaning behind that.
You can understand the state of hysterical anger by Liberals on Clinton's loss in 2016 to Donald Trump. Obama lit the fuse of cultural upheaval -- another 8 years under Hillary Clinton would have sealed the fate of the U.S. irreversibly.
What has illegal immigrants got to do with all this?
First you need to understand the federal election system in US - for Congress, Senate and the Presidency.
Each state is allocated 2 Senate seats. The number of Congressional seats is computed from a formula based on population size. Thus the bigger states have more seats in Congress. The states vote for their representatives to represent them in Capitol. That's straight forward.
For the presidency, it's convoluted. Each state is allocated a certain number of "Electoral Votes" (EV). The number of EV is the number of allocated Congressional seats + 2 Senate seats. If Texas has 38 Congress seats, then it has 40 EV. The states appoint a relevant number of Electoral Voters. So Texas would have 40 Electoral Voters. These are party loyalists appointed by each state. The votes are based on a winner takes all basis. If Trump wins Texas, he take all 40 Electoral Votes. On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the Electoral Voters meet in their own state capitals to cast the EV. So Texas Electoral Voters will cast 40 EV for Trump. On 6th January, Congress meets in a joint session to count the EV and certify the winner.
Here's why illegal immigrants matter. Every 10 years the US does a census. The number of congressional seats of each state is computed on the basis of this census. However, the census take in all residents (does not distinguish a resident is a citizen), which is used for various purposes such as tax registration. Thus the state with more aliens has an advantage and this weighs unfairly against Republicans because the blue states tend to have more aliens as their socialist programmes is a magnet for these illegal immigrants. In 2014 Republican controlled Congress voted for HR 7109 Bill which would have made the census indicate whether the resident is also a citizen. As only citizens can vote, the basis of allocating Congressional and seats and College Votes can then be based on actual number of citizens in each state in accordance with the Constitution, not residency status. The Democrat controlled Senate and Biden understandably refused to pass HR 7109.
A census with data on citizenship count could drastically redistribute Congressional seats. For example, it was estimated California, could lose some 10-12 seats. This led to the theory, not without basis, that the open border policy is to flood states with aliens who will be counted in the census to dilute Republicans' share of Congressional seats. This is because blue states tend to have more alien residents. A further claim, unproven as yet, is Democrats use of registering aliens to vote. There are a few investigations going on in this direction.
The next question is how did this cultural revolution spread so fast?
Obama enabled and facilitated the revolution. But he alone could not single-handedly have carried the movement.
* Institutionalization in Universities (1980s–2000s)
Postmodernism and Critical Theory spread through humanities and social sciences. Departments formed around identity:
- Women’s Studies
- African-American Studies
- Queer Theory
- Postcolonial Studies
Key ideas
- “Lived experience”; objective truth; Systems of oppression are everywhere (racism, sexism, etc.); Language itself can be violence.
* Convergence and Codification (2000s–2010s)
- Intersectionality - people face layered oppression (e.g., black + woman + poor).
- Privilege theory - some are inherently advantaged by race/gender.
- University administrations begin embedding these ideas into:
- Hiring practices (DEI offices)
- Curriculum (bias training, safe spaces)
- Student life (speech codes, activism)
Result: The university becomes a cultural factory, exporting activists, HR officers, journalists, and teachers trained in this worldview, executives in top government positions and business. Harvard and Columbia universities became hot bed of activist faculties.
* Mainstream Explosion (2010s–present)
Social media amplifies ideology into moral absolutism (cancel culture, call-outs). Corporations, NGOs, and schools adopt it to stay “on the right side of history.” DEI, anti-racism, trans activism, and “equity” become institutional mandates.
4. In response, a populist-nationalist counter-revolution is rising to reclaim sovereignty, tradition, and local control.
1990s-2008 Globalization and Technocratic Overreach:
The Cold War ends and liberal democracy was thought to be “the final form of government” ("The End of History" - Fukuyama). Globalism accelerates and arise the various multilateral institutions like NAFTA, WTO, WHO, IMF, etc. The formation of EU and its expansion, free movement, open markets. Political elites in the U.S. and Europe converge on technocratic governance, post-national institutions, and neoliberal economics.
The consequence : Working-class jobs move overseas; borders open, migration surges. Traditional cultural values eroded by elite cosmopolitanism. Political parties (left and right) both appear captured by “Davos Man” ideology.
Populism had not yet born — but alienation and resentment are building.
2008-2016 First Wave of Revolt (Obama era):
Global Financial Crisis (2008). Bankers bailed out, citizens left behind. Trust in governments, media, and experts collapses.
Obama triggered the cultural revolution -- wokeism, DEI, transactivism taking root.
2009-2011 Populist Breakouts:
Tea Party in USA was the first populist expression, framed in fiscal conservatism but rooted in anti-elite anger.
UKIP or UK Independent Party rises, pushes Brexit into the mainstream.
Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary, Afd (Alternative fur Deutschland, and FN (Front National of France) (Hungary), AfD (Germany), FN (France) populists parties of the Right gain support and strength but remain on the margins of power.
2016 onwards - Cultural Factors:
Rapid cultural liberalization -- gay marriage, gender fluidity, mass migration. Progressive Culture becomes dominant in media and universities.
2016-2019 Counter-Revolution Goes Mainstream
Tectonic Events take place in US and UK:
Brexit Referendum (June 2016) — Britain votes to exit the EU.
Donald Trump elected (Nov 2016) — runs on America First, anti-globalist, anti-woke populism.
Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary move decisively toward nationalism and traditionalism.
Key Themes Begin To Consolidate:
* National sovereignty
* Anti-immigration
* Cultural preservation
* Anti-elitism (media, tech, bureaucracies)
* Rejection of "rules-based global order"
For the first time since WWII, post-liberal nationalism controls real levers of power.
2020-2022 Suppression and Entrenchment
COVID-19 Pandemic - Global crisis leads to return of technocratic governance (controls):
* Lockdowns
* Vaccine mandates
* Centralized health control
* Big Tech, government, and media collude to censor dissent.
* Progressive cultural policies accelerate in the West:
- DEI enforcement
- Transgender rights as human rights
- Anti-racism as state dogma
Populist Setbacks:
* Trump loses 2020
* Brexit chaos undermines populist governance
* EU tries to isolate Hungary and Poland
* Anti-populist narrative (e.g., "threat to democracy") becomes dominant
2023-present Global Realignment & New Conservative Momentum
Counter-Revolution Reasserts:
* Giorgia Meloni (Italy) elected PM — open Christian conservative, anti-woke.
* Trump returns as GOP frontrunner — this time with a deeper personnel bench (Project 2025).
* Geert Wilders (Netherlands) wins election.
* European populist right surging: Le Pen, AfD, Spain’s Vox, Belgium’s Vlaams Belang.
* Nigel Farak of Reform Party and Brexit fame gains popularity and posed to dethrone Labour PM Keir Starmer.
Far-right parties poised for gains in EU Parliament elections (2024). Focus of Populists Sharpens:
* Sovereignty over WHO, EU, WEF influence
* Education + culture wars (anti-gender, anti-critical race theory)
* Energy independence (anti-ESG, pro-fossil fuels)
* Closing borders
* Anti-globalist resistance to climate orthodoxy and mass migration
The counter-revolution now views itself as a long-term project — not just electoral, but civilizational.
The rise of populist-nationalist movements is best understood as a direct reaction to the progressive cultural revolution and globalist liberalism. This counter-revolution seeks to reclaim national sovereignty, cultural tradition, and popular control from what is seen as an unaccountable elite regime — comprised of technocrats, global institutions, progressive activists, and corporate media.
Key reference points from Trump’s America, Europe, and the UK:
Trumpism in the U.S. — Nationalist Populism Reborn
Slogan : Make America Great Again
* Core Themes:
- America First -- Foreign policy should serve U.S. interests, not global institutions (NATO, UN, WTO).
- Anti-globalism -- Rejection of free trade deals, climate treaties, and open-border immigration.
- Anti-wokeness -- Framing progressive cultural ideology as a threat to American identity and tradition.
- Law & Order / Traditional Values -- Reinforcing national symbols, police, patriotism, religious liberty.
- Anti-war, peace through strength.
- Rebuild economic strength -- cut wastage, fraud, build efficiency, reshoring manufacturing, fair trade.
Trump’s genius was to fuse working-class economic anxiety with cultural discontent — creating a new, ideologically hybrid right.
* Political Strategy:
- Attack the elites -- Deep State, media, academia, and big tech.
- Restore sovereignty -- From global compacts, activist judges, and federal bureaucrats.
- Appoint originalists -- Use judicial power to dismantle regulatory overreach and protect tradition.
Trump’s base sees him as the first Republican in decades to fight the culture war on their behalf.
Brexit: The UK’s Populist Revolt
What it Represented - A revolt against EU control, but also against London’s globalist political class.
Slogan: “Take Back Control” — over borders, laws, trade, and culture.
* Cultural Dimensions:
- Anti-Progressive culture sentiment
- Desire to protect British identity from EU multiculturalism and progressive norms.
* Revolt against technocratic governance from Brussels.
Brexit was both an economic and cultural divorce from a post-national liberal project.
Continental Europe: The Rise of Cultural Sovereigntists
* France – Marine Le Pen:
- Opposes “woke globalism” and EU dictates.
- Positions herself as a defender of French civilization, laïcité, and border control.
- Appeals to working-class voters abandoned by neoliberal technocrats.
* Italy – Giorgia Meloni:
- Conservative populist PM: “I am Giorgia. I am a woman, I am a mother, I am Italian, I am Christian.”
- Rejects gender ideology and mass immigration.
- Frames the EU and NGOs as eroding national sovereignty and identity.
* Hungary – Viktor Orbán:
- Bluntly anti-woke, pro-family, anti-migration.
- Has become a symbol for the populist right: “Illiberal democracy” as a model of resistance.
* Poland – Law & Justice Party (PiS):
- Anti-EU judicial interference. - Promotes Catholic values and traditionalism. - Uses cultural conservatism as a national rallying point.
Conclusion
I am deeply concerned Singapore establishment seems not to be seeing a contest of these 4 power struggles, at least we do not see anyone talking about it. In a previous post I "gathered" 4 Singapore thinkers Mahbubani, George Yeo, Lee Hsien Loong and Tommy Koh to see how they view Trump. Mahbubani and Tommy Koh are very important in this respect as their views filter into the Singapore's equivalent of think tanks such as Lee Kuan School of Foreign Policy which influence foreign policies. Mahbubani speaks in public only in relation to civilisational big picture issues. I have not seen him covering these 4 power struggles. George Yeo comes close, but still not quite at it. Lee is only concerned with matters of governance, and Tommy's world view is strictly through the lens of international law.
Mahbubani, Lee and Tommy all prefer the status quo, ie the Liberal World Order. Lee and Tommy want to cling to the so-called law-based order without concern that goal posts have shifted under liberal universalism of the West nor the institutional capture by technocratic elites. Sooner or later, we would have seen the cultural revolution of the West exported to, perhaps imposed on, Singapore. It was only a matter of time before this sick progressive culture turns up at our shore. But thank goodness for Trump who seems to have been like a victorious Charles Matel at the Battle of Tours.
Liberalism tends toward universalism and absolutism, especially when it abandons its roots in natural law, Judeo-Christian ethics, or transcendent truth. Pope Benedict saw this clearly as not only a spiritual danger but a civilisational one, the replacement of moral depth with procedural correctness, and truth with preference.
In his "Dictatorship of Relativism" Benedict warned of false universalism of liberalism where it universalises its principles (eg democracy, individual rights, autonomy) as if they were eternal truths detached from history and tradition. This universalism erodes cultures, traditions, and religious identities under the guise of tolerance.
Every social movement germinates from an idea, which filters into the culture, and politics reacts to it. The cultural revolution in the West is based on half-baked ideas of Critical Theory, Queer Theory and Privilege Theory that Obama facilitated and institutionalised and Democrats ride on for long term political hegemony.
* Convergence and Codification (2000s–2010s)
- Intersectionality - people face layered oppression (e.g., black + woman + poor).
- Privilege theory - some are inherently advantaged by race/gender.
- University administrations begin embedding these ideas into:
- Hiring practices (DEI offices)
- Curriculum (bias training, safe spaces)
- Student life (speech codes, activism)
Result: The university becomes a cultural factory, exporting activists, HR officers, journalists, and teachers trained in this worldview, executives in top government positions and business. Harvard and Columbia universities became hot bed of activist faculties.
* Mainstream Explosion (2010s–present)
Social media amplifies ideology into moral absolutism (cancel culture, call-outs). Corporations, NGOs, and schools adopt it to stay “on the right side of history.” DEI, anti-racism, trans activism, and “equity” become institutional mandates.
4. In response, a populist-nationalist counter-revolution is rising to reclaim sovereignty, tradition, and local control.
"I'd really like to see somebody stand up and do what's right for the country, not what's right for some special interest group. I don't have any ambition to run for president. I'm not interested in it. But if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally, because I really am tired of seeing what's happening with this country."Here's a quick time-lapse view to see how things moved after that Trump interview.
Donald Trump 1988 (on Oprah Winfrey Show)
1990s-2008 Globalization and Technocratic Overreach:
The Cold War ends and liberal democracy was thought to be “the final form of government” ("The End of History" - Fukuyama). Globalism accelerates and arise the various multilateral institutions like NAFTA, WTO, WHO, IMF, etc. The formation of EU and its expansion, free movement, open markets. Political elites in the U.S. and Europe converge on technocratic governance, post-national institutions, and neoliberal economics.
The consequence : Working-class jobs move overseas; borders open, migration surges. Traditional cultural values eroded by elite cosmopolitanism. Political parties (left and right) both appear captured by “Davos Man” ideology.
Populism had not yet born — but alienation and resentment are building.
2008-2016 First Wave of Revolt (Obama era):
Global Financial Crisis (2008). Bankers bailed out, citizens left behind. Trust in governments, media, and experts collapses.
Obama triggered the cultural revolution -- wokeism, DEI, transactivism taking root.
2009-2011 Populist Breakouts:
Tea Party in USA was the first populist expression, framed in fiscal conservatism but rooted in anti-elite anger.
UKIP or UK Independent Party rises, pushes Brexit into the mainstream.
Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary, Afd (Alternative fur Deutschland, and FN (Front National of France) (Hungary), AfD (Germany), FN (France) populists parties of the Right gain support and strength but remain on the margins of power.
2016 onwards - Cultural Factors:
Rapid cultural liberalization -- gay marriage, gender fluidity, mass migration. Progressive Culture becomes dominant in media and universities.
2016-2019 Counter-Revolution Goes Mainstream
Tectonic Events take place in US and UK:
Brexit Referendum (June 2016) — Britain votes to exit the EU.
Donald Trump elected (Nov 2016) — runs on America First, anti-globalist, anti-woke populism.
Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary move decisively toward nationalism and traditionalism.
Key Themes Begin To Consolidate:
* National sovereignty
* Anti-immigration
* Cultural preservation
* Anti-elitism (media, tech, bureaucracies)
* Rejection of "rules-based global order"
For the first time since WWII, post-liberal nationalism controls real levers of power.
2020-2022 Suppression and Entrenchment
COVID-19 Pandemic - Global crisis leads to return of technocratic governance (controls):
* Lockdowns
* Vaccine mandates
* Centralized health control
* Big Tech, government, and media collude to censor dissent.
* Progressive cultural policies accelerate in the West:
- DEI enforcement
- Transgender rights as human rights
- Anti-racism as state dogma
Populist Setbacks:
* Trump loses 2020
* Brexit chaos undermines populist governance
* EU tries to isolate Hungary and Poland
* Anti-populist narrative (e.g., "threat to democracy") becomes dominant
2023-present Global Realignment & New Conservative Momentum
Counter-Revolution Reasserts:
* Giorgia Meloni (Italy) elected PM — open Christian conservative, anti-woke.
* Trump returns as GOP frontrunner — this time with a deeper personnel bench (Project 2025).
* Geert Wilders (Netherlands) wins election.
* European populist right surging: Le Pen, AfD, Spain’s Vox, Belgium’s Vlaams Belang.
* Nigel Farak of Reform Party and Brexit fame gains popularity and posed to dethrone Labour PM Keir Starmer.
Far-right parties poised for gains in EU Parliament elections (2024). Focus of Populists Sharpens:
* Sovereignty over WHO, EU, WEF influence
* Education + culture wars (anti-gender, anti-critical race theory)
* Energy independence (anti-ESG, pro-fossil fuels)
* Closing borders
* Anti-globalist resistance to climate orthodoxy and mass migration
The counter-revolution now views itself as a long-term project — not just electoral, but civilizational.
The rise of populist-nationalist movements is best understood as a direct reaction to the progressive cultural revolution and globalist liberalism. This counter-revolution seeks to reclaim national sovereignty, cultural tradition, and popular control from what is seen as an unaccountable elite regime — comprised of technocrats, global institutions, progressive activists, and corporate media.
Key reference points from Trump’s America, Europe, and the UK:
Trumpism in the U.S. — Nationalist Populism Reborn
Slogan : Make America Great Again
* Core Themes:
- America First -- Foreign policy should serve U.S. interests, not global institutions (NATO, UN, WTO).
- Anti-globalism -- Rejection of free trade deals, climate treaties, and open-border immigration.
- Anti-wokeness -- Framing progressive cultural ideology as a threat to American identity and tradition.
- Law & Order / Traditional Values -- Reinforcing national symbols, police, patriotism, religious liberty.
- Anti-war, peace through strength.
- Rebuild economic strength -- cut wastage, fraud, build efficiency, reshoring manufacturing, fair trade.
Trump’s genius was to fuse working-class economic anxiety with cultural discontent — creating a new, ideologically hybrid right.
* Political Strategy:
- Attack the elites -- Deep State, media, academia, and big tech.
- Restore sovereignty -- From global compacts, activist judges, and federal bureaucrats.
- Appoint originalists -- Use judicial power to dismantle regulatory overreach and protect tradition.
Trump’s base sees him as the first Republican in decades to fight the culture war on their behalf.
Brexit: The UK’s Populist Revolt
What it Represented - A revolt against EU control, but also against London’s globalist political class.
Slogan: “Take Back Control” — over borders, laws, trade, and culture.
* Cultural Dimensions:
- Anti-Progressive culture sentiment
- Desire to protect British identity from EU multiculturalism and progressive norms.
* Revolt against technocratic governance from Brussels.
Brexit was both an economic and cultural divorce from a post-national liberal project.
Continental Europe: The Rise of Cultural Sovereigntists
* France – Marine Le Pen:
- Opposes “woke globalism” and EU dictates.
- Positions herself as a defender of French civilization, laïcité, and border control.
- Appeals to working-class voters abandoned by neoliberal technocrats.
* Italy – Giorgia Meloni:
- Conservative populist PM: “I am Giorgia. I am a woman, I am a mother, I am Italian, I am Christian.”
- Rejects gender ideology and mass immigration.
- Frames the EU and NGOs as eroding national sovereignty and identity.
* Hungary – Viktor Orbán:
- Bluntly anti-woke, pro-family, anti-migration.
- Has become a symbol for the populist right: “Illiberal democracy” as a model of resistance.
* Poland – Law & Justice Party (PiS):
- Anti-EU judicial interference. - Promotes Catholic values and traditionalism. - Uses cultural conservatism as a national rallying point.
Conclusion
I am deeply concerned Singapore establishment seems not to be seeing a contest of these 4 power struggles, at least we do not see anyone talking about it. In a previous post I "gathered" 4 Singapore thinkers Mahbubani, George Yeo, Lee Hsien Loong and Tommy Koh to see how they view Trump. Mahbubani and Tommy Koh are very important in this respect as their views filter into the Singapore's equivalent of think tanks such as Lee Kuan School of Foreign Policy which influence foreign policies. Mahbubani speaks in public only in relation to civilisational big picture issues. I have not seen him covering these 4 power struggles. George Yeo comes close, but still not quite at it. Lee is only concerned with matters of governance, and Tommy's world view is strictly through the lens of international law.
Mahbubani, Lee and Tommy all prefer the status quo, ie the Liberal World Order. Lee and Tommy want to cling to the so-called law-based order without concern that goal posts have shifted under liberal universalism of the West nor the institutional capture by technocratic elites. Sooner or later, we would have seen the cultural revolution of the West exported to, perhaps imposed on, Singapore. It was only a matter of time before this sick progressive culture turns up at our shore. But thank goodness for Trump who seems to have been like a victorious Charles Matel at the Battle of Tours.
Liberalism tends toward universalism and absolutism, especially when it abandons its roots in natural law, Judeo-Christian ethics, or transcendent truth. Pope Benedict saw this clearly as not only a spiritual danger but a civilisational one, the replacement of moral depth with procedural correctness, and truth with preference.
In his "Dictatorship of Relativism" Benedict warned of false universalism of liberalism where it universalises its principles (eg democracy, individual rights, autonomy) as if they were eternal truths detached from history and tradition. This universalism erodes cultures, traditions, and religious identities under the guise of tolerance.
Every social movement germinates from an idea, which filters into the culture, and politics reacts to it. The cultural revolution in the West is based on half-baked ideas of Critical Theory, Queer Theory and Privilege Theory that Obama facilitated and institutionalised and Democrats ride on for long term political hegemony.
There are no thinkers in Singapore that discusses what is happening in the world today at intellectual and philosophical dimensions other than to criticise Trump who is not the cause of the world's problem but a part of a counter revolutionary force to the liberal universalism, techno elitist capture of institutions, and radical cultural revolution.
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.
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.
