Category Archives: Culture

The Heinous Nature of Headlines and Propaganda as an Experiment in Psychological Manipulation

Article by Gary D. Barnett.

He starts it off with a quote from Edward Bernays‘ 1928 book ‘Propaganda‘, in which he writes:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.“

(Bernays, by the way, was a nephew of Sigmund Freud.)

Then, in his own article, Barnett writes:

For most, it is a struggle to just get up and face the day, or at least that is the case for a majority of the population. Because of that, most choose to hide from reality in order to satisfy a dream-state, instead of facing the truth. It is as if the entirety of this population is in a mind-control experiment, and are being hypnotized to accept their own slavery as the best option. AI, if allowed to take over society, can accomplish that designed outcome, just as is sought by the oligarchs.

He ends his article with these words:

This reality is not accidental, it has been purposely created in order to capture the psyche of the majority. Something is greatly amiss here, as so many of this population have effectively given up on actual life in favor of a State-structured life based on fraudulent perception as a way of escaping what is real. This is terribly disturbing, as the last thing needed at this time is a country full of obedient zombies. This makes me wonder if the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” was simply a prescient preview of things to come.

“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?”

Watership Down and Richard Adams Documentary

Video by Stuart Robinson, who writes:

If you’re a fan of ‘Watership Down’ then I hope you’ll find this film very interesting. It’s the 50th anniversary of the first publication of ‘Watership Down’ in November 2022 so I’m sharing this documentary that I filmed with Richard Adams ten years ago. In a series of interviews Richard talks about his life and times, revealing his passions, influences and experiences that led him to write his famous novel. Happy viewing, thanks Stuart.

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.

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.