COUNTER CLOCKWISE CULTURE

The sounds you can very clearly hear as we swirl in a counter clockwise direction down the gurgler of culture are the screams of 'normal deplorables' clutching their outdated ideas of common sense, logic, manners, and the Judeo-Christian morality which has afforded all of us, including our suicidal 'elites' (a.k.a. lunatics) the luxuries of disagreeing with the status Quo.

Our new 'intellectual betters'(a.k.a. 'delusional') are purposefully pursuing policies designed to bring Western civilisation to its knees in the vain hopes of replacing it with a Utopian, more 'loving culture' such as those we are  able to currently witness in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, the current flavour of the month for Western Civ haters:

Later Tammam told us at a fancy Korean BBQ restaurant that coal miners get to eat at discounted rates. According to Article 30 of the DPR Korean constitution, “arduous trades” are entitled to shorter working days.
You get the impression that the so-called ‘elite’ in North Korea are different to the elite of capitalist societies, consisting of school teachers, scientists, architects, doctors and engineers, people whose ingenuity plays a role in providing the brain power for the state’s drive towards economic self-sufficiency. Are these people paid more? Yes, but this inequality pales in comparison to the inequality you see in the capitalist world. [Jay Tharappel]

A segue by Tim Blair on this pay differential: "Great way to run an economy. Let’s see Sydney University academics demonstrate solidarity by accepting wages below those of apprentice bricklayers"

Jay is a Phd student at Sydney Uni under the tutelage of that great dissembler of Western Civilisation and friend to Dictators everywhere Tim Anderson.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/uni-row-over-korea-puff-piece/news-story/4da7b6ccbb63754db514a26c307495bf

Aren't we all looking forward to that 'great leap forward' where our current intellectual betters (a.k.a. loons) are safely ensconced in positions of bureaucratic power where they can legally reduce we peons to the 'proper' position of serfs to our new feudal overlords.

What a rosy future we can see in the tea leaves.

A HYBRID CREATURE

An astute summation of the character of Australia's #1 political incumbent...Chauncey Alinsky:

"Many of us might think that Turnbull stands for nothing but his own self-aggrandisement. That would be a mistake.

He stands, apparently, and very worryingly, alongside a goodly number of his party colleagues, in supporting a belief system that is viscerally loathed by many across the Liberal Party membership and out in voterland. See, Turnbull does not believe in broad churches when it comes to political parties. He does have an agenda. The agenda, in summary, is to retain the things that his Party’s base finds repugnant – like the ABC; debt; multiculturalism; Labor policies on education and social welfare; and the like – and to advance things that the Party’s base decidedly do not want – like the global warming/renewables scam; world government, or at least global oversight of Australia’s political business; more migration from groups that the “deplorables” fear; probably, at least when it is safe, the republic; and so on.
Turnbull’s international friends are those leaders most despised by your average right-of-centre voter – Merkel, Trudeau, Macron, May, John Key, Obama. His chosen Praetorian guard of miserable C-teamers – Bishop, Birmingham, Frydenberg, Pyne, in particular – are not on the Christmas card lists of anyone I know. They are enablers of bumbling, Three Stooges level incompetence and, at the same time, woke, inner-city leftism.
One question about Turnbull is – dangerous or merely hopeless? The same question came up again and again during the Obama presidency. How can one be so inept and, at the same time, so effective in changing our society and our country? The answer is, one can, indeed, be both Chauncey Gardner and Saul Alinsky simultaneously. A bungler with an agenda." [P Collits]

a.k.a. the Malchurian candidate.

A PROPER TRANSITION

An article worth reading. It is authored by a well known conservative writer who transitioned from a left-wing radical (like Orwell and many others) into a conservative when he realised that the Utopian ideas of Marxism do in fact become insidious and dangerous to ordinary people as they are put into action:

When I began the project of describing this movement in the 1980s, the emergence of the left as a mainstream force in America’s political life was fairly recent and inadequately understood.” Its triumph in the 21st century was demonstrated perfectly by soon-to-be president Barack Obama in 2008, is a good example.
She labels him psychologically disturbed, but Horowitz knows well enough not to get involved in the hopeless task of proving his innocence, i.e., his sanity. To judge a dissenter mentally unbalanced is an old Communist procedure. In Volume VIII of the series, The Left in the University, Horowitz notes that academics have thoroughly adopted it in their Cold War historiography, the “consensus” version, in the words of an approving professor whom Horowitz quotes, starting with the premise that “an exaggerated, irrational fear of communism…created an atmosphere of persecution and hysteria.”
It is sometimes difficult to realize how drastic is this sweeping thesis of conservative irrationality, perhaps because of its long legacy, running from The Authoritarian Personality (1950), an influential sociological study led by Theodor Adorno that aligned fascist leanings with rightwing beliefs, to President Obama’s infamous remark about working-class whites: “[T]hey get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or antiimmigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Many liberal columnists and hosts now take conservatism-as-pathology as a starting point, and establishment conservatives haven’t responded effectively. This is another instance in which the Right has failed to understand how the Left operates, Horowitz believes. In the letter cited above, we have a leftist friend offering to fathom a renegade’s error by probing his psyche, an act that could be taken as a mode of sympathy, or at least as a wider awareness of him than his politics alone.
But that would only repeat a foolish mistake by the Right, the one, Horowitz writes, whereby “conservatives imprudently accepted the left’s deceptive claims to be ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive,’ ascribing to it idealistic intentions.” To take the psychological query at face value is to miss how it alters the debate, insidiously so, and not in the way conservatives have come to expect.
For a long time, conservatives have charged leftists with politicizing everything and everyone, but the diagnostic move does the opposite. It de-politicizes the conservative. Whatever political opinions he holds dissipate once we view him as a fragile, deluded ego. Conservatism, then, is no longer a political outlook which must be opposed by democratic means. It’s a psychosocial condition, and that’s not something you debate. Instead, you confine the sufferer.
It doesn’t take much arrogance to sustain that diagnostic approach when a settled community of liberals reinforces it, and condescension is their default mode of handling conservatives. Besides, Horowitz notes, a pleasing selfspoke of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (Volume VII is entitled The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama). President Obama didn’t look and sound like a ’60s radical—no bad behavior, a bourgeois family life—but he readily politicized the IRS and other agencies, inserted gender identity into regulations never intended for it, and was entirely comfortable with rappers in the White House. There you see the liberal accommodation of the Left, the same beliefs and goals but with a lighter touch.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/radical-prophet/