What is Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism (PAU)?10 min read

In the polarized landscape of modern politics, labels often obscure more than they reveal. Terms like progressivism or wokeness serve as shorthand for broad ideological movements, but they frequently flatten distinct worldviews into partisan caricatures. Beneath the surface, however, a more unified system of thought is emerging—a fusion of global capitalism, technocratic governance, postmodern relativism, and soft authoritarianism. This system, which could best be described as Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism (PAU), represents not merely a political movement but an attempt to reshape the foundations of Western civilization.

1. What Is Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism (PAU)?

Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism combines three core elements:

• Progressive, Secular Moral Framework: A replacement of Judeo-Christian ethics with a fluid, self-defined system of morals, racism, classism, identity, and intersectional hierarchies.
• Authoritarian Technocracy: Rule by unelected bureaucracies, corporate elites, and global institutions that claim to govern in the name of expert knowledge.
• Utopian Vision: An idealistic drive to engineer a more inclusive, equitable society—always through coercive social and economic policies.

While each component has distinct origins, their fusion into a single ruling ideology marks a profound shift in Western political life. Unlike traditional progressivism, which sought reforms through democratic will, PAU increasingly seeks to bypass democratic processes altogether in favor of managerial control.

2. The Intellectual Roots of PAU

PAU’s philosophical foundation draws heavily from postmodern thought and critical theory:

• Michel Foucault’s power dynamics (rejecting objective truth in favor of subjective power structures)
• Judith Butler’s gender theory (identity as fluid and self-defined)
• Critical Race Theory’s emphasis on systemic oppression

However, what distinguishes PAU from pure postmodernism is its marriage to global capitalism. Rather than deconstructing power hierarchies, PAU aligns itself with corporate elites and global financial institutions—the very forces the old left once sought to dismantle.

This alliance creates what some have called Woke Capitalism—a fusion of social radicalism with the economic interests of transnational corporations. Google’s diversity initiatives, BlackRock’s ESG mandates, and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals all exemplify this convergence.

3. The Managerial State

At the heart of PAU lies a profound shift from democratic governance to authoritarian managerial governance. This model relies on:

• Bureaucratic agencies (like the EU Commission)
• International institutions (UN, IMF, WEF)
• Corporate compliance programs (DEI offices, ESG mandates)

These entities claim to act in the public interest but often operate with little accountability to the democratic will. The COVID-19 pandemic showcased how managerial elites could justify sweeping restrictions on liberty under the guise of public safety—a precedent that now extends to climate policy, hate speech laws, and misinformation crackdowns.

4. The Religious Nature of PAU

Despite its secular appearance, PAU functions as a quasi-religious system. It offers:

• Original Sin: Defined as inherited guilt—specifically, the sins of colonialism, historical patriarchies, and race-based slavery. This framing, while aiming to address past wrongs, distorts progressive politics by prioritizing grievance over reason, leading to several critical errors: the rejection of valid constitutional principles, ignorance of historical complexity, and a descent into pure negativism. These missteps undermine both the intellectual integrity and practical outcomes of such ideologies.
• Salvation: Is proposed as creating minority allies (intersectionalism) among the “oppressed” to refashion and enlarge government in order to establish equal outcomes even if equal merit is lacking.
• Priesthood: Diversity consultants, climate experts, and DEI bureaucrats, as well as elite intellectuals and “experts” are all revered and not to be contradicted. Disagreement with them is to be suppressed and punished.
• Heresy Trials: Cancel culture and social media shaming, as well as the now absurd expansion of hate speech laws that seriously threaten criticism of “protected groups.” [[A critical review of the Online Safety Bill (sciencedirect.com)}} ¹

What makes PAU particularly dangerous is its claim to moral infallibility—all while denying the existence of absolute truth. This combination breeds what C.S. Lewis warned of in The Abolition of Man: a tyranny wielded not by men, but by those who claim to be above morality itself.

5. Why Utopianism Always Ends in Tyranny

The utopian impulse—whether Enlightenment-born, Marxist, or postmodern—promises a perfected society through human design. Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism (PAU) starts with secular moral relativism, rejecting universal truths for subjective, power-driven narratives (e.g., Foucault’s influence). This dissolution of fixed morality leaves the state as the ultimate arbiter of good—not by virtue, but by default of its coercive power. Utilitarianism steps in, justifying policies for “the greater good” (equity, sustainability), yet without an objective standard, the state’s definition reigns supreme. Dissent becomes a threat to this collective vision, inviting Machiavellian tactics: individual rights—speech, conscience, property—are curtailed for the whole, cloaked as moral necessity.

History bears this out: the French Revolution’s egalitarian dream ended in the guillotine; Soviet utopia birthed the gulag. PAU follows suit, its fluid morality (e.g., shifting hate speech norms) demanding centralized enforcement.

What begins as a rejection of absolute truth ends in absolute state power—not from denying morality, but from claiming sole authority to define it. The utopian gap between ideal and reality can only be bridged by tyranny.

6. Why Christians Should Resist PAU

Christianity fundamentally challenges Postmodern Authoritarian Utopianism (PAU) by anchoring truth in a transcendent God, beyond human or state manipulation. PAU’s secular relativism, by contrast, elevates subjective constructs—identity, power, technocratic expertise—to ultimate authority, a move incompatible with Christian metaphysics. This clash extends beyond theology into practical governance and biblical interpretation, where PAU’s utopianism finds no support—and where Christians must guard against misreadings that align Scripture with it.

One common exegetical error suggests Jesus endorsed socialism, often citing Acts 2:44-45: “All the believers were together and had everything in common.” This describes the early church pooling resources voluntarily, a spontaneous act of charity among individuals—not a state-enforced system. The text lacks any hint of government mandate; it reflects personal conviction, not political structure. Jesus’ own teachings—e.g., “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21)—draw a line between temporal authority and spiritual allegiance, never conflating the two into a redistributive state. Socialism, as a secular ideology, imposes equality through coercion, while Christian giving (e.g., the widow’s offering, Mark 12:42-44) hinges on free will. To equate the two is to misread both intent and context.

Similarly, commands for individual virtue—generosity (Luke 6:38), mercy (Matthew 5:7), provision for the poor (Proverbs 19:17)—are directed at persons, not governments. Scripture assigns rulers a limited role: upholding justice and order (Romans 13:1-4), not engineering social outcomes. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) acts alone, not through a bureaucracy; the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21) is called to give personally, not via taxation. Assuming these mandates extend to the state imports a modern collectivist lens alien to the text. Biblical government restrains evil, not perfects society— that is a task reserved for God’s kingdom and the gospel that changes individual hearts.

PAU’s utopianism clashes with the gospel in this way. Its optimistic view of human capacity—perfectible through technocratic control—denies the Christian doctrine of the Fall, where imperfection persists until divine renewal. History shows concentrated power in utopian pursuits (e.g., Jacobin terror, Bolshevik purges) often harms the vulnerable it claims to uplift. PAU’s quasi-religious trappings—guilt as privilege, redemption via activism, elites as moral arbiters—further mimic Christian forms while rejecting its substance, substituting the state for God. Unchecked by transcendent truth, this system trends toward coercion, as seen in its expanding grip on speech and behavior.

Christians should resist PAU not from nostalgia, but because its logic—unmoored from Scripture’s view of human limits and divine sovereignty—leads to dehumanization. Poor exegesis risks complicity, twisting biblical calls for personal virtue into endorsements of state overreach. The Christian framework prioritizes individual dignity and accountability, restraining power rather than sanctifying it.

7. Conclusion: Progressive Statism is a False Gospel