The Long Betrayal: How Modern Monetary Policy Became a Machine for Ruin

Article by Sebastian Wang.

Excerpt:

Keynes: Misused, Misunderstood, and Weaponised

Austro-libertarians often reject Keynes outright. But fairness demands a distinction between Keynes’s actual theory and what has been done in his name.

Keynes did not advocate permanent deficits or chronic inflation. His argument was specific: when private demand collapses as a result of previous political or banking mistakes, the state may need to support employment temporarily until confidence returns. He believed that deficits should occur in recessions, and budget surpluses should follow in recoveries. His famous dictum was clear:

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.”

Nothing in that sentence resembles the behaviour of modern governments.

The post-war political class discovered that Keynesian rhetoric provided a moral cover for something they already wanted to do—spend without restraint. They kept the deficits but abandoned the surpluses. They celebrated “stimulus” and ignored discipline. And so Keynes’s emergency prescription became an open-ended licence for irresponsibility.

The tragedy is that Keynes wanted to stabilise capitalism. His followers hollowed it out.

The Unholy Synthesis: Politics, Banking, and the Illusion of Wealth

By the late twentieth century, the system had settled into a stable pattern:

  1. Governments ran structural deficits.
  2. Central banks bought their bonds, expanding reserves.
  3. Commercial banks multiplied those reserves through credit.
  4. Asset prices rose.
  5. Voters mistook asset inflation for prosperity.
  6. Politicians claimed victory.

It is a mutually reinforcing cycle. The state gets cheap debt. Banks get profitable leverage. Voters get rising house prices. And the economy absorbs wave after wave of malinvestment.

But the structure is inherently unstable. It requires ever-growing debt to sustain the illusion. It cannot tolerate honest interest rates. It collapses if credit contracts. It accumulates imbalances so large that no democratic government can address them openly without committing political suicide.

This is not capitalism. It is a form of monetary serfdom disguised as modernity.

Why the System Cannot Reform Itself

Reform would require at least three impossible acts:

  • A political class willing to accept short-term pain to avoid long-term ruin.
  • A banking sector willing to surrender its privilege of creating money.
  • A voting public willing to accept falling asset prices and higher interest rates.

No such coalition exists. Every attempt at reform triggers electoral revolt. Every crisis invites a new round of emergency interventions that further entrench the existing machinery. The conclusion is harsh but unavoidable: The current monetary order cannot be reformed. It can only fail.

Thirty years of COP failures: the damning assessment of a climate process disconnected from reality

Article by Samuel Furfari, who ‘is an engineer, and PhD from University of Brussels. He is a Professor of energy geopolitics and policy. For 36 years he was a senior official in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy. He is author of numerous books.’ 

Excerpt (conclustion):

It is time to turn the page on climate illusions and recognize that the global priority must be economic development and access to energy for all. As the changing positions of emerging countries demonstrate, the future does not belong to ideological decarbonisation, but to energy pragmatism, which alone can meet people’s legitimate aspirations for prosperity, quality of life and well-being. The time has come to abandon a United Nations process that has proved ineffective and to shift international efforts to the real priorities: the fight against poverty and economic development for all through access to abundant and cheap energy.

Silencing the Scientists: Dissent, Censorship, and the New Technocracy

Article by Mark Keenan.

Excerpts (my emphases):

Critics argue that by severing science from broader philosophical or spiritual questions, modern institutions emphasize data while overlooking deeper questions of meaning and truth. In this view, a kind of technocracy has emerged—one in which scientific institutions can appear less like explorers of reality and more like gatekeepers defending established doctrine. Real science seeks understanding; fake science seeks obedience.

If we are to restore genuine inquiry, we must recover not only intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility — the recognition that truth cannot be owned by the state, the market, or the algorithm.

[. . .]

When Truth Becomes Treason

The moralization of science has turned dissent into sin. A climate skeptic is not “wrong” — he is a “denier.” A doctor questioning mandates is not “debating” — he is “spreading misinformation.” This is the language of religion, not reason. Science without dissent is not science at all; it is propaganda. But the cost of silence in the present is immense: an entire generation is being taught that conformity equals integrity.

Restoring Scientific Freedom

The answer is not to reject science, but to depoliticize it. That begins with transparency: open data, open debate, and open funding. Research should not be filtered through bureaucratic agendas or corporate interests. Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry offer a path forward — if the public demands it. Science belongs to everyone, not to the technocrats who manage its narrative. True environmental and medical progress will never come from censorship, but from curiosity — the very trait that built civilization itself.

A New Age of Technocratic Faith

We are entering an era where “belief in science” has replaced belief in God — but without humility or grace. Many worry that a small number of technology platforms now have extraordinary power to shape what information is visible—effectively influencing via algorithms which viewpoints are elevated or ignored.

Unless we restore the freedom to question — whether about carbon, Covid, or any future crisis — we will find ourselves living not in a knowledge economy, but in an information prison. To critics, parts of institutional science now function almost like a new secular authority—one that emphasizes compliance and control. And its heretics are, once again, the last defenders of reason.

My (PwG) thoughts on this:

“If the public demands it”, the author writes, we will get the necessary structures to return to honest science: “Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry”.

He correctly recognises that we are in a crisis “not only [of] intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility”.

So, the only way to get the public to “demand” a return to proper science is to first restore “moral and spiritual humility”.

This is the task of the century for Christian churches worldwide. Unfortunately, it appears that about 99% of them don’t recognise it, at least not to its full extent.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY deleted opening scene / scientist interviews. Part One

37-minute video here.

See also this 3-hour podcast ‘EXPOSED: Hollywood Intentionally Destroys Spiritual Themes in Modern Films | Rob Ager’

Where the interviewee says that the vision many of the scientists interviewed for ‘2001’ seemed to have is that a god-like entity will emerge from the intelligent beings evolving in the universe. It won’t be a God that created the universe, but a God that takes control of the universe.

Which is more or less exactly how Gary North interprets the materialistic-evolutionary mindset: Out of chaos came order (despite entropy) and as soon as intelligence emerged, it ‘legitimately’ starts ‘guiding’ and ‘controlling’ evolution to serve its purposes.

No different from the ‘might makes right’ attitude actually.