Donald Trump's speech to the United Nations was one of the clearest expositions of the way he sees the world, his ideology in its rawest form.
To his supporters, it will be seen as Trumpism unplugged - to his critics, Trumpism unhinged.
Over almost an hour, he took aim at his opponents and their ideas, picking them off one by one as he toured the world. He began at home, praising the United States and himself. He said the US was living through a golden age and repeated his much-disputed claim that he had personally ended seven wars, something he argued merited a Nobel Peace Prize.
But then the president laid into his hosts. The UN, he said, had not helped his peace-making. He questioned the organisation's purpose, saying it had tremendous potential but was not living up to that. All it did, he claimed, was write strongly worded letters that it did not follow up. Empty words, he said, did not end wars.
He also attacked the UN for the aid it gave to asylum seekers hoping to enter the US, saying: The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them. The president even attacked the UN for a broken escalator and teleprompter that disrupted his visit and speech.
On one level, he has a point. Many analysts question the effectiveness of the UN in resolving conflict these days, pointing in particular to gridlock in the Security Council and the body's unresponsive bureaucracy.
But on another level, Trump can himself be seen as both a cause and symptom of the UN's lack of effectiveness - for he believes global crises are best resolved by powerful men like him getting together and hammering out a deal.
Trump saved perhaps his biggest criticism for his European allies, attacking the continent for investing in renewable energy, and opening its borders to migration. Europe is in serious trouble. They have been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody has ever seen before… he said, accusing these policies of being suicidal.
In conclusion, while Trump conveyed a vision he believes is protective of national sovereignty and heritage, the overall reception of his address reflects a shift in global attitudes toward his leadership, moving from laughter to silent contemplation.
