Liberal globalism may be coming to an end. What should we expect to replace it?

(LifeSiteNews) — The liberal global system is winding down. Project Global has reached its limits, failing to collapse and absorb Russia, and ruining the economies of Europe in the process. Public opinion has swept liberals out – and populists into office. This looks like a moment of major realignment – or as some say – the “end of liberal civilization” entirely.

With digital technocrats more influential than ever – what kind of system can we expect in its place?

For over a century Western democracy has been about choice – between liberalisms. These consumer options were presented as the product range of liberal democracy. You could vote for left-liberals, for right-liberals – and for extreme liberals of different shades, such as the Greens.

Regardless of which flavor you chose, what you were given was broadly the same. After the end of the Soviet Union, what the liberal consensus offered was a politics of continuity, which was, as Viktor Orbán put it, “LGBT, open borders and war.”

What has emerged to replace it is called “populism.” The British political philosopher John Gray has observed that populism is not a coherent politics. It is not defined by an idea.

Instead, he said it is simply the rejection of the liberal idea in theory and in practice. People do not like what liberalism says and does about the world they are made to live in – by liberals.

Many people no longer vote at all as a result. In the last election in Gray’s homeland, the United Kingdom, only half the people who could vote did so.

A study called “Half of us” by the Institute for Public Policy research said, “One-half of adults in this country voted at the 2024 general election, the lowest share of the population to vote since universal suffrage.”

The report came out a week after the general election was won by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, in a result which delivered him a huge majority – despite the fact that only one in five people voted for him.

READ: Why the radical Zionism of Trump, Musk should concern us all

This does not indicate a popular politics. Yet as Gray points out, this should come as no surprise.

“Most of the world’s human population,” he explained in April 2024, “do not accept Western democracy as a model.”

Gray, who was tutored by the greatest champion of 20th century liberalism – Isaiah Berlin – noted in 2023 that “populism is largely created in its present form” as a reaction to “hyper-liberalism.”

To this he has added the observation that it is liberals themselves who are incapable of understanding why their system is rejected. This is, as he explained in his books, because liberals believe theirs is the perfect system.

This also explains the reason why the alternative to the liberal consensus is coded negatively. “Populism” equals “bad,” in the liberal mind – and is bracketed with “extremism.” This is because it appeals to beliefs outside those of the liberal system – literally a system of make-belief.

A system of make-belief

Liberal democracy is the system invented a century ago following the destruction of the European order in the First World War. Through the creation of international bureaucracies to coordinate its rule, the liberal system made use of “public relations” to manufacture belief in its economic and military ambitions. These ambitions were global, and produced the globalism we know today.

John Gray was also one of the first to point out this system had reached the limits of its shelf life. No one wanted to buy what it was selling anymore. The global system it hoped to create was falling apart, and the response of liberals has been simply to deny this reality entirely.

This liberal civilization, he said in 2023, is finished. In 2024, he described “hyper-liberalism” as “the biggest threat to freedom in the West.”

Well, the West has had enough. Liberal governments in Germany, Austria, and Canada have dissolved, following the election victory of President Donald Trump – who has vowed to Make America Great Again.

Promising an end to war, alongside a war on the Deep State which wages them at the expense of lives, taxes, and liberties, Trump has emerged at the end of the liberal life cycle to open the door to a new political dispensation.

What will this look like?

In place of a selection of liberalisms, it looks very likely that the new political product range will present a choice between nationalisms.

In 2019 Hungary’s Viktor Orbán said that his nation could provide a template for a re-Christianized Europe for Europeans. He was mocked by the liberals, who described him as “far right” – a label used by liberals to smear and criminalize critics of liberal policies – as Britain’s Keir Starmer has done.

Orbán has consistently promoted a model of “gestation – not migration” for the future of his and other Western nations.

The liberals are not laughing now. During Hungary’s tenure in the rotating European Union presidency, he restated this vision, saying effectively that the liberal model of a rainbow war on civilization was over.

It now appears that a return to the Christian values of the family, of the nation, and of national borders is precisely what the West is looking towards now. Orbán, echoing Trump, called for a new politics to “Make Europe Great Again.” Sanctioned by the EU for his strong borders and policies against LGBT ideology, Orbán’s Hungary has survived peak liberalism with pro-family policies – and has pioneered initiatives to revive the birth rate. Late last year Italy “looked to Hungary” for guidance on how to reverse its native population decline.

Five years ago the liberal deep state journal Carnegie described Orbán as “lost in the wilderness.” It is now the liberals who are losing – and whose cause seems lost forever. Orbán’s vision – and not theirs – is one which chimes with the changing times.

Yet though the liberal aspect of the system appears to be dead, the global aspect may not. The technique of governing liberal democracies – the rule by media – has been supplanted or refined by the advancing influence of social media.

Whoever shapes the public mind has considerable power to shape the future. The mechanisms of mass media are obvious, but what is less apparent is who – or what – is “in control.”

Social media systems are powered by algorithms, themselves the result of the collection of trillions of data points about human behavior. This data has been mined by companies like Google, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and their shadier cousins like Palantir – all of whom are developing artificial intelligence algorithms to better predict, and mimic, human behavior.

One compelling reason to invite “free speech” on to your social media network is that your network then gains a richer input than that of your rivals, whose “community guidelines” simply handicap their attempts to win the AI race.

This may explain in part why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has recently decided to “dump the fact checkers” on his Meta platforms, and promote “free speech” instead.

Facebook, of course, was launched on the same day that the Pentagon’s near identical mass surveillance tool “LifeLog” was canceled – following public outrage at its ambitions to mine the private lives of Americans and people worldwide to power a government surveillance operation.

READ: Pentagon leaks and the RESTRICT Act: the latest on the Deep State’s war against truth

Palantir is doing exactly this, by the same means – and using the same workaround as Facebook. It is allegedly OK folks – because a private company does not have to receive congressional approval for its actions, as an arm of the U.S. government must. Palantir and Facebook can be seen as privatized AI surveillance and control systems, acting for the state – but beyond democratic accountability.

As independent journalist Whitney Webb said on January 7, “Palantir is a candidate for a globalist digital world brain, as it runs national security states (incl the US’) all over the globe, but also much of the corporate world.”

Like Palantir’s “predictive policing” efforts, TIA was designed as a pre-crime program to stop both terror attacks and bioterror and even pandemics before they can happen. Palantir has developed the programs to accomplish all of this, the latter through their HHS and CDC…

— Whitney Webb (@_whitneywebb) January 7, 2025

Concerned about plans to use predictive AI “pre-crime” technology to profile Americans, the New York Times asked “Does Palantir know too much?” in its 2020 report.

Palantir’s co-founder and CEO, Alex Karp, is an avowed Zionist. His company is in a “strategic partnership” with Israel, providing “killer apps” which automate the identification, targeting and selection of frequently innocent “terrorists” for termination in Israel. His company has provided the technology to realize a virtual system which kills human beings in a process having no human input.

READ: What you need to know about Palantir, the data mining company used to fuel Zionist wars

Like Karp, Elon Musk is also a data miner, developing his own advanced AI.

Musk has expressed strong approval for Karp and his MAGA-friendly vision of an America made “safe” by the algorithms he has programmed with your data.

Based https://t.co/dd1RW6ITrj

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 8, 2024

Yet Webb, whose work on the “digital deep state” provides a disturbing perspective on the new algorithms of governance, warned readers, “Absolutely nothing is patriotic about Palantir except maybe their sales rhetoric.”

It is to be noted that the men behind the algorithm of the new governance are all aligned with Zionism – as well as almost all the populists.

With populism more of a doorway – and not a destination – it is worth bearing in mind that the transition from one system to another would require patronage and power to be transferred. The liberals, whose estrangement from reality is so complete they simply cannot believe that people have rejected them, are not going to cooperate.

The Zionists, whose financial networks and influence over U.S. foreign policy is well established – also have an interest in doing away with the liberal system.

This helps to explain why populists from the U.S. and across the world are all to some degree aligned with Zionism.

El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Argentina’s Javier Milei, the U.K.’s Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, the Dutch leader Geert Wilders, Italian leader Georgia Meloni, Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán, and the AfD in Germany all announce their support for Israel. Musk, of course, has recently tweeted that “only the AfD can save Germany.”

What we appear to be getting is a new technocratic and National-Zionist establishment. Nations are back, and globalism appears to have transitioned from the physical to the digital realm.

In future, the argument will probably expand to degrees favoring one aspect over another. An argument between nationalisms is likely to be the long-term product range under the new management.

For the time being, anyone wishing to make it in the Western politics replacing liberalism should consider a visit to the Western Wall.