For me, at least, one of the less edifying sights of recent times was watching Australia’s Prime Minister and his wife trying on television to seize what was known traditionally as ‘the moral high ground’.

Thirty years let alone half a century ago such an ambition would have been rather easier than it is today because anyone attempting to do so would have been assured of sharing a large number of their assumptions with their audience. For example, ‘cheating’ on one’s wife – as the Deputy Prime Minister at least appeared in recent times to have done – would formerly have been widely agreed to be not just rather poor form but just plain ‘wrong’.

Fifty years ago, of course, the surreptitious would-be moral messages of post-modernism had only just begun to insinuate themselves into the public consciousness. By today, however, we are asked to believe that even very young children should be encouraged to select their genders from an interminable list of ‘alphabet’ choices long before they can, for instance, confidently multiply six by seven. Can we, in fact, be assured morally any longer of anything at all?

One of the advantages of older forms of religion such as Catholicism was the consistency of their moral codes. In short, what the Church encouraged or discouraged morally half a century ago may still be extremely likely to apply. Such ‘conservatism’ does not meet the approval of our growing hordes of ‘progressives’ but does somewhat assist believers in their lives through the existence of virtues and vices which remain the same.

Karl Marx had a particular hatred of Catholicism which he correctly perceived as the bulwark of Western civilisation most likely to thwart his plans.  As Paul Kengor states appropriately in his recent book Takedown: from communists to progressives how the Left has sabotaged family and marriage: ‘Communism begins where atheism begins.  They were all interconnected: communism, atheism, abolition of religion, abolition of marriage, abolition of the family – all peas in the same pod.’

Just before Christmas, one of the holier times of the Christian calendar, Mr Turnbull welcomed the runaway ‘success’ of the same-sex marriage plebiscite with what seemed to be tears of joy. Presumably now that they can be legally ‘wed’ there will be rather fewer infidelities by Harry and Larry or Holly and Polly. Traditionally such folk were rather more promiscuous than their so-called heteronormative peers.

Politicians who take the trouble to educate themselves properly – since such an ambition remains rather hard to achieve these days through our existing public facilities – ought surely to be aware that SSM is merely an historic cog in the Marxist ideological machine the overall aim of which was and is to bring Western civilisation to its knees. Who can argue with that machine’s evident recent successes?

It is my belief that anyone with even half a brain could not have voted for SSM if they had read Kengor’s excellent book before voting. Luckily for us, however, true intellectuals still exist in our world who can cut through the all-enveloping moral haze created by post-modernism, neo-Marxism and all its other basically communist derivatives.  In Australia, however, we are also in danger of being so dumbed down by our regular media that many of our leaders can do or say more or less anything they want with impunity. Australia is by no means unique in such a regard, of course, because those living in Europe have in recent years been fed a continuous diet of lies by their leaders.

Thus multiculturalism which is self-evidently an issue largely concerning creeds and beliefs was sold for years on end as being a question largely of race. Under this totally misleading umbrella, ‘racism’ was thus even made a punishable offence. Have you yet read The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglas Murray? In it, Murray illustrates with innumerable examples how those living in contemporary democracies are lied to consistently by their leaders who imagine, often rightly, that their constituents are too thick or muddled to notice. What ordinary people living in democracies do notice however are the effects of their leaders’ policies.

When I was a young man travelling anywhere in Europe was a joyous, educative and very largely safe experience – with the possible exception of driving on Spanish roads in the early 1960s. (The old road from the coast up to Ronda, a city of breathtaking beauty, was once so terrifying that the sister of a friend had to be driven back, heavily sedated, in the middle of the night.)  Today, however, the roads are the least of the problems of Europe largely because of mass immigrations by often utterly unsuitable people. The residents always knew this of course but were consistently betrayed by their leaders. Do you notice any parallels to our recent experiences in Australia?

I have just received a copy of Clive Hamilton’s Silent Invasion. Described in the blurb as a ‘public intellectual’ – whatever that means – Hamilton is certainly brave in his criticisms of China, the world’s largest remaining communist power. Don’t be fooled by any pretences of democracy there, but we ourselves are also becoming more and more totalitarian by the day. Have you sold a house recently? The latest curb on our freedoms is that video evidence is required now to support the signing and witnessing of forms.

Intellectual is one of the more misunderstood words currently in use.  To me it describes a person of genuine intelligence who can move with little effort between disciplines. How many such are contributing currently to the running of Australia? Outside those writing for this magazine or Quadrant the numbers have become pitiably few.