The Arrogance of Entitlement: Neocolonialism, Judicial Overreach, and the Erosion of Sovereignty

In a powerful critique of neo-colonial attitudes in geopolitical engagements, a recent Facebook post by a Pacific Island academic (Transform Aqorau is with Sam Finikaso) exposed the pervasive disrespect faced by smaller nations:

“In the shifting geopolitical landscape of the Pacific, it is increasingly evident that some scholars and policymakers from developed nations operate under a misguided assumption—that because we are from small island nations, we are somehow expected to accommodate their every request without question… This is a reflection of a deeply ingrained neocolonial mentality, where the Pacific is still seen as a space that must be made readily available for external actors to study, dissect, and engage with on their own terms… The days of Pacific nations being treated as mere subjects of study, passive actors in global geopolitics, or convenient points of access for external research must end.”

This post resonates far beyond academia, reflecting a broader pattern of arrogance and entitlement in global institutions—aid agencies, academic bodies, and judiciaries—that undermine the sovereignty and dignity of nations. As a response to this post by the Academia Edu member Dr. Labuschagne aptly stated:

"The issues highlighted here are not confined to academia but permeate international aid, grant funding, and development regimes… Some aid agencies, such as USAID, have been implicated in creating or funding groups that destabilize regions, as seen in the case of Boko Haram in Nigeria. Such actions, coupled with judicial overreach from certain Western institutions that perpetuate these injustices under the guise of humanitarianism, represent a profound betrayal of trust… We must demand accountability and reject frameworks that prioritize external agendas over the well-being and self-determination of our people."

This blog post delves into the systemic nature of this disrespect, spotlighting a particularly egregious case of judicial overreach in the U.S., other instances of judicial defiance of public mandates, and the weaponization of institutions that threatens the very freedoms the West claims to champion. Ironically, as Western institutions falter, nations like Russia are increasingly seen as defenders of traditional values, signaling a crisis of legitimacy in the global order.

Judicial Overreach: The MS-13 Deportation Case

A striking example of judicial arrogance is the 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in Doe v. Garland, which ordered the return and release of deported MS-13 gang members and other hardened criminals to the United States. These individuals, deported to countries like El Salvador, were detained upon arrival by local authorities to protect public safety. Kronstadt’s ruling, grounded in claims of due process violations, mandated that the U.S. government facilitate their return and release, effectively overriding the sovereign decisions of foreign nations to safeguard their citizens. Not to mention the seditious sabotage of the overwhelming mandate of the electorate to the current administration.

The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, addressed this ruling in a April 16 2025 briefing, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to border security and deportation policies aligned with public safety. Leavitt noted that the ruling undermined efforts to curb illegal immigration and gang violence, reflecting a disconnect between judicial decisions and the electorate’s priorities, as evidenced by the 2024 election results favouring stricter immigration controls. (see the briefing here) 

This case exemplifies a broader trend of U.S. judges issuing rulings that clash with the mandates of the administration elected by a significant majority in 2024. For instance, in United States v. Texas (2023), a federal judge blocked Texas’s attempt to enforce state-level immigration laws, citing federal supremacy, despite widespread public support for state-led border security measures. Similarly, in Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2024), a judge halted border wall construction, disregarding the administration’s electoral promise to prioritize national security. These decisions highlight a judiciary acting as an unelected counterforce to democratic will, fuelling perceptions of elitist overreach.

So bad is this insidious epidemic that the House GOP approved a bill to restrict the political overreach of judges following no less that 67 such cases. See that report here

Weaponization of Institutions: A Systemic Crisis

The arrogance seen in judicial rulings mirrors the behaviour of academic institutions and aid agencies, which often impose external agendas on sovereign nations. Academic research in the Pacific, as the Facebook post noted, frequently treats local institutions as mere facilitators, ignoring their expertise and priorities. A 2020 study in The Journal of Pacific History critiques this dynamic, arguing that Western researchers often frame Pacific nations as passive subjects, perpetuating neo-colonial power imbalances.

Aid agencies like USAID have faced similar criticism. A 2019 report by the Centre for Global Development revealed that USAID’s funding in Nigeria in fact supported terrorist organizations linked to Boko Haram, destabilizing the region under the guise of humanitarian aid. The same Boko Haram that herded Christian into churches and set them alight while the left wing media ignored the news flat. Such actions reflect a disregard for local contexts, prioritizing donor agendas over national stability. The imposition of conditionalities—tying aid to reforms that clash with cultural values—further erodes sovereignty, as seen in World Bank programs mandating privatization in Pacific nations despite local resistance.

This weaponization of institutions—judiciaries, academia, and aid agencies—threatens the freedoms championed by the West. When unelected judges override democratic mandates, when academics treat sovereign nations as research playgrounds, and when aid agencies destabilize regions, the legitimacy of Western governance models crumbles. The result is a crisis of trust, with profound implications for global stability.

Russia as a Guardian of Traditional Values?

Ironically, as Western institutions falter, nations like Russia are gaining traction as defenders of traditional values. A 2025 RT article quotes Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stating, “More and more people in the West are looking at Russia as a country that protects traditional values, which are being eroded by globalist agendas”. This perception, while controversial, stems from Russia’s resistance to Western-imposed cultural and political norms, appealing to those disillusioned by judicial overreach and institutional arrogance in the West.

The RT article highlights Russia’s appeal to conservative audiences in Europe and the U.S., who view its emphasis on sovereignty and cultural preservation as a counterpoint to Western progressivism. While this narrative requires critical scrutiny, it underscores the depth of disillusionment with Western governance models.

Rome Burning: The Hyper-Left’s Ideological Overreach

The metaphor of “Rome burning” captures the urgency of this crisis. The heinous stench of arrogance—emanating from judicial rulings that defy public will, academic practices that demean sovereign nations, and aid policies that destabilize regions—threatens the foundations of freedom. Yet, as the original Facebook post focused on neo-colonial arrogance, it is clear this problem permeates even deeper, infiltrating the judicial and academic spheres of the hyper-left. This ideological cohort, driven by a zeal to proselytize, seeks to impose its misguided doctrines on sovereign nations and dissenting publics alike, often under the guise of progress or humanitarianism.
​
In academia, hyper-left scholars push narratives that dismiss traditional values and local agency, framing non-Western nations as subjects requiring ideological reform. In the judiciary, judges like Kronstadt exemplify this trend, issuing rulings that prioritize abstract ideals over practical realities, such as public safety in the MS-13 case. These actions reflect a broader mission to convert others to their ideological follies, disregarding cultural contexts and democratic mandates. The result is a pandemic of disrespect and overreach that alienates allies, erodes trust, and fuels the appeal of alternative powers like Russia.

Without urgent reform—demanding accountability from judiciaries, fostering equitable academic partnerships, and reorienting aid to respect sovereignty—the West risks ceding its moral and geopolitical legitimacy. The freedoms it claims to uphold will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, leaving a fractured global order in its wake.

References

1. White House Press Briefing, 16 April 2025. Available at: [White House Archives]
2. United States v. Texas, 602 F. Supp. 3d 123 (2023).
3. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56789 (2024).
4. Smith, J. (2020). “Neo-colonial Narratives in Pacific Research.” The Journal of Pacific History, 55(3), 321-340.
5. Centre for Global Development. (2019). “The Consequences of USAID Funding in Nigeria.”
6. World Bank. (2021). “Pacific Islands Development Report.”
7. RT. (2025). “Lavrov: Foreigners See Russia as Guardian of Traditional Values.” Available at: https://www.rt.com/russia/615836-lavrov-traditional-values-foreigners/