The collapse of South Korea’s experiment with matriarchy confirms suspicions about the character of the global elite.

This weekend’s Women’s March was on the surface driven by confusing and somewhat bizarre demands. But it was easy to understand in its unstated, emotional motivations: a collective tantrum by mostly white, privileged women who didn’t get their way in the election and didn’t get the matriarch they believed was their due. Educated — or rather, college-conditioned — women in the West have an unprecedented social status, maybe equal to that of the lower nobility in medieval France, and correspondingly high opinions of their own competence and importance as a class. It’s unclear why the modern State has elevated feminism to this position, and why so many affluent American women have been convinced that theirs is the right to rule. But the answer may be found if we look briefly at the character of international political elites.

The political class President Trump targeted in his “terrifying” inauguration speech is responsible for measurable and historic failures in America. Together with their counterparts in Asia and in Europe, they have fomented global chaos and suffering. But what kind of people are the members of this global “elite” — how do they become rulers, and what are their characters and tastes? Are they really, as they imagine themselves, capable technocrats? Or are they, as some think, Machiavellian conspirators? Or are they maybe something else — weak-minded, and therefore easily-controlled, mental and spiritual cripples?

It’s always easier to get a perspective on yourself by looking abroad first. So it’s instructive to see what happens when East Asians adopt Western globalist mandarins’ social and political ideas, and apply them with typically Confucian zeal. The sorry end is thereby accelerated and the tawdry scheme exposed more quickly and honestly than it could be in America or England. Take, for example, Korea’s experiment with the cult of female leadership.

Last month Park Geun-hye, the first female president of South Korea (and of anywhere in East Asia), was impeached on the 9th of December. Western media has underplayed the story: the embarrassing political collapse of a nation’s first female leader in a bizarre scandal involving corruption, incompetence, and the occult was not convenient. Massive, cinematic rallies involving, at times, millions of protesters (after her approval rating had fallen to the single digits) eventually did force the hand of corporate stenographers to give the events some attention. But much of interest has been left out.

The scandal revolves around Park Geun-hye’s fruitbat attachment to Choi Sun-sil, a “shaman” or spiritual medium who apparently helps her commune with the spirit of deceased ancestors, but who seems to double as a ventriloquist for Park herself. She in fact ended up dominating Park’s administration for personal gain, affecting everything from choice of wardrobe to, one assumes, national policy. Park’s eldritch tenure, worthy of treatment by a future Korean Houellebecq, exhibited early oddities: her very poor choice of clothing for state visits — a cheap dress she wore to meet China’s Xi Jinping was later revealed also to have been smeared with chicken fat — was a national embarrassment; she held few press conferences and spoke in incoherent sentences.

In 2014 the MV Sewol ferry sank, taking with it over 300 lives, mostly of young students, a catastrophe that attracted international attention. Allegations of government corruption and incompetence related to this disaster, and the fact that Park Geun-hye, missing for seven hours during the event, was possibly attending a shamanistic ritual, fed wild rumors and contributed to a collapse in her poll numbers.

Completely ignored by Western media, but not by Koreans, is whether Park’s submissive deference to the “Eight Goddesses” cult and its grasping Tiger-Mother Pythia has driven national policy. Since 2013 the South Korean Ministry of Gender Equality has been overfunded while conscripted Korean young men are paid barely enough to eat. Tens of thousands of young Americans are asked to risk their lives for the defense of this nation while, under its serene matriarch, South Korea chooses to spend part of its national budget on “menstruation leave.”

Online pornography is banned in Korea and men can be prosecuted for viewing it; feminist thought control is all-pervasive and intelligence agents are under investigation for having trolled the heavily-censored Korean message boards to influence the 2012 election in favor of Park Geun-hye. Maybe not unrelated, and as happens in every country exposed to the miasma promoted by the American “elite,” many poorer Korean men can’t afford the social standing for family formation; and Third World immigration takes on the character of a population-replacement program.

Alas, South Korea’s incipient experiment with matriarchy is now ending as a cruel joke on that nation. But if even half of the sordid details had been hinted at in 2015, they would have no doubt been dismissed as misogynist Putin propaganda, and concerned Korean citizens or journalists would have been called Kremlin agents.

Which brings up the question: Are events in Korea really so “bizarre” as our desperate media is trying to pretend, or is it merely that behavior common to the political-technocratic class worldwide was in this case not suppressed? Barney Frank, one of the progressive stars of the Democrat party and a co-author of the all-pervasive, cronyist Frank-Dodd Act, had a gigolo-friend who ran a prostitution ring out of his home. Tony Blair, one of the principal pushers of the Iraq disaster and the most aggressive of propagandists for globalist dogma, is also a well-known cultist. He participated in a “Mayan rebirthing ritual” in the Yucatan with his wife, where together they smeared fruit juice and mud on each others’ faces and yelled in a “primal scream,” which is surely more enlightened than whatever it is that benighted Christian rednecks do.

The sassy exhibitionist gay-rights activist Anthony Weiner and his Muslim Brotherhood wife, who was angling for a position as First Vizier, are perhaps the ultimate example of the elite power couple. Their antics, and Weiner’s in particular are, however, not unique. Is it fair to mention the uncontested Wikileaks emails revealing the occult UFO hobbies and kitsch neopaganism of Hillary campaign manager Podesta and other DC insiders? Or the remarkably similar private foibles of outspoken members of the American “intelligence community” who roleplay as James Bond on Twitter? To understand how this works, the documentary “Weiner” is an invaluable resource. It appears that, for whatever reason, the American elite selects for highly ambitious, compromised, corrupt, pedestrian people of remarkably banal and unrefined tastes, easily exploitable sexual neuroses, and a preoccupation with the faddish and occult.

Globalist ideology, whether of left-progressive or supposedly “right wing” neoconservative variety, appears to be a convenient weapon to shield deeply insecure people from having to face public scrutiny for their lame and sordid lifestyles, their aggrandizement of power, or especially to pay the price for their repeated failures.

Elena Kagan, an alleged Solomon of our time, may serve as an instructive example of how the cream rises to the top in America’s mandarin age. An obese, unaesthetic spinster, who, as Paul Gottfried has noted, rose to prominence on no significant intellectual achievements or original ideas, (but instead apparently through much political networking), she serves the same function in the American regime that court eunuchs did in Oriental despotisms. Eunuchs, devoid of an identity and posterity of their own, were seen as the perfect loyal functionaries to carry out the will of a centralized bureaucratic tyranny. This is the distillation of “meritocracy,” and the modern total State apparently has plenty of virtual eunuchs to fill out the function in our time — and seems eager to promote many more.

To question how this elite arises and why it is allowed to perpetuate itself despite no manifest virtues and much manifest failure means one will be, as in Korea, abused with labels of “misogyny,” “racism,” “xenophobia,” “you name it” — and many other things, besides.

This is a problem that transcends nations, and also the phony right-left divide. The right no less than the left has dozens of apparatchiks of its own, persons with delusions of aristocratic manner, who are now, for example, insisting that Trump hire them for their proven expertise. Having dismissed him as a reckless and impetuous yokel, they insist that the advice they previously gave, and which resulted in the American string of successes in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Egypt (and so on) be rewarded as befits republican, even Roman, sobriety and prudent statecraft.

I don’t know if these men in particular are marionettes of something as bizarre as a shaman or Big Man who guides their actions, or are as loony as the Podestas. But I do know many at least avow faith in lunatic magical ideas — the periodic reincarnation of Hitler, and the ability and willingness of Pashtun goatherds, Iraqis, and “refugees” from Syria, Somalia and Libya to embrace “liberal democracy.” I know they share such beliefs with Merkel and other Western leaders. I also know that if you question any of this, they call you racist.

It’s easier to laugh at South Korea’s leader for being the puppet of some prefab astrologer than to confront what we already know about our own ruling classes. How these came to be educated and chosen, and how they persist, is the big, existential question that the free peoples of the civilized world must face. They must choose, and soon, if they want to humor the vanity of the experts and statesmen of the modern managerial “democracies,” or if they want to survive at all.