Menticide 101 and the Brainwashing of a World: Part III—New Courage for Old Lies

By Dr Bruce Scott

Taking stock

In Part 1 and Part 2 of Menticide 101 and the Brainwashing of a World, I discussed the double-pronged attack of menticide and the normalisation of a biosecurity-driven, technocratic scientific dictatorship. I now put forward the argument that we find ourselves in a position where cries from a position of reason or intellectualisation are for the most part met with a non-response from the powers that be. We are faced with the challenge as individuals, as a collective in society, and as a civilisation especially, in how we must reflect and respond to this menticidal assault.

Without a doubt, we are living in a time of increased menticidal pressure where there are real perpetrators from within our own government and external parties wishing to do us harm. Official “fact checkers” can deny this fact as much as they like; it only makes them look like they are also a part of the problem. Amongst all the doom and gloom with which we are presented, in both the mainstream and alternative media, it is imperative that strategies of defence are put into action, to protect ourselves (or wake up) from the wilful menticidal attack.

Critique from the East

The Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, whose daughter Daria Dugina was recently brutally assassinated by (allegedly)[1] Ukrainian special forces, outlines some characteristics of the enemy that we in the West, and the world in general, are all facing and what it is that this enemy wants to attack and destroy. Dugin names the enemy as Western political modernity: the modern Western political ideology of globalism encompassed within such initiatives as the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 of the United Nations. However, Dugin clarifies his position by declaring that he is not asking people to fight against the West: the West, and its peoples, are not an enemy. Nor is he asking us, the people, to fight against modernity or the realities of modernity either (e.g. certain positive technological advances).

So it is neither the West nor modernity that Dugin is critiquing; it is specifically Western modernity. This particular form of Western modernity he describes as the anti-Christian, anti-spiritual, anti-traditional and anti-sacred turn in Western history that coincided (not by chance) with colonialism and the beginning of the Enlightenment. Our contemporary scientific, materialist, colonialist (globalist) period of Western history is the evil enemy that human civilisation faces.[2]

It is no accident that social commentators like Dugin are demonised by the Western mainstream press and politicians. Dugin holds up a mirror revealing the stark realities of the threats we face from the World Economic Forum (i.e., the Great Reset) and the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, which represent, in actuality, old lies (old totalitarianism, fascism or colonialism) badly disguised as some altruistic utopian vision of the future. It is so badly disguised that there is a plethora of documents and evidential sources which indicate the disdain that its framers hold for ordinary people. For example, the World Economic Forum’s Professor Yuval Harari, who wants to reinvent democracy in such a way that the idea of free will is abolished,[3] is just one patent example of the globalists’ contempt for humanity and their desire for the destruction of what it is to be a human being.

The old drive for a scientific and technological dictatorship

This menticidal attack has been ongoing for many years, long before the Covidian era which commenced in early 2020. This is aptly described and clearly shown by Philip and Paul Collins[4] as they outline the historic drive towards a technocratic globalist state, where bodies and psyches are controlled and where freedom on Earth is extinguished. Taking into consideration the psychological tactics that have been clearly shown to have been used to nudge us during the Covid era[5], the scientistic vision of humanity is described by Philip and Paul Collins as a ‘global Skinner box’.[6]

The Skinner box is named after the psychologist B.F. Skinner, the progenitor of theories and research on operant behavioural conditioning on rats kept in boxes with mazes, challenges, rewards and punishments for the rats to navigate. Here, a Skinnerian—or scientistic—view of man is one where we are to be easily and constantly measured and tabulated. The desire of the “élites” is for us to be like the rats in the Skinner box, where our environment is controlled so that our behaviour is constantly monitored and manipulated through rules, rewards and punishments (e.g., Universal Basic Income-based social credit system, carbon-footprint tracker, biosecurity measures, vaccine passes, etc.).

If one wants a picture of what the future holds for us if the globalists succeed in their vision of the future, we could do no better than revisiting the closing vision of George Orwell’s seminal dystopian novel, 1984:

But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now.

There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.[7]

Orwell’s fictionalised future brings to mind the very real technocratic, scientistic attack by the globalists on the traditional family,[8] the promotion of pornography in children’s schools[9] and the use of psychiatric medication[10] to annihilate sex drive and the ability to orgasm. So the scene is set and very much upon us. We are in an unenviable position, in which most people will take their seat somewhere on the line between blind acceptance, cognitive dissonance, gloomy despondency and outright fear. The prospect of the Orwellian boot on the face of humanity with no escape is enough to drive many to despair and give up.

However, what I have sought to impress upon the reader in this series of articles on menticide is this: that waves of fear, chaos, and false hope to push us into insanity (and acceptance) constitute a major tactic that we face from the present-day menticidal assault. Instead of crumbling in response to this threat, like the rats in the Skinner box and like Pavlov’s dogs,[11] we must find a new courage—a literal re-membering of an old courage (what worked in the past), to face old totalitarian lies, recycled into new lies for the Great Reset. This is where the rarely-quoted and poorly-known ideas of Joost Meerloo, already cited in the previous parts of this article, become invaluable.

From old to new courage

The reader might be asking, what can give anyone strength to resist a menticidal assault? Drawing upon findings from those who survived—both physically and mentally—the horrors of the Communist gulag and Nazi concentration camp, Meerloo offers a fascinating analysis and solution. Meerloo writes:

The answer is essentially simple. Men yield primarily because at some point they are overwhelmed by their unconscious conflicts [emphasis added]. These conflicts, kept under control in normal circumstances, come to the surface under the strain of menticidal pressure. The stronger the inner conflicts and the greater the pressure, the greater the tendency to yield. Men withstand pressure when these conflicts cannot so easily be aroused or have been inwardly overcome.[12]

These unconscious conflicts can be described as inner or inchoate longings for security, certainty, safety and shielding from the fearfulness of an unpredictable world. Often, they are related to upbringing, education, or the conditioning that an individual has been exposed to. These unconscious conflicts can be so severe, and hence so deeply repressed, that an individual is not so much as aware of them; or they are transformed into a set of covert beliefs, attitudes and habits which are more palatable for an individual to accept in his mental inner sanctum.

For instance, an individual will agree with “the science” on getting a vaccine, or will cave in to passively agreeing with the state-defined “expert” as a security blanket, rather than face the uncertainty of a landscape where there is a gamut of different views, where one has to make a decision and stand on one’s own two feet. It is often the path of least resistance for someone suffering from deep-seated insecurities to acquiesce passively to authority, to free himself from the existential battering of life. Attractive as that path may seem, there is no Big Earthly other to save you.

Meerloo found from his psychiatric examination of prisoners of war freed from North Korean and Nazi concentration camps that many of the PoWs who were able to resist enemy propaganda most robustly were men who had a history of lifelong rebellion towards authority figures: parents, teachers, bosses, army superiors and the like. A less negative observation of his was that resilient PoWs were men of a deep self-knowledge, highly conscious of their inner conflicts and acutely aware of what the enemy was trying to do to them, and they were mentally prepared to meet the attack head-on.

Those who understood themselves were only too willing to accept the danger of this mental assault as a thrown-down gauntlet. They were men who well knew that others, however softly-spoken in action, had the capacity for committing evil against them. They did not harbour infantile or naïve notions that their jailer or abuser would ultimately go easy on them or baulk at dispatching them. They were open to the grim reality that they could be killed at any moment.[13]

Meerloo makes a further very pertinent point from his post-war research, one which sheds a sinister light on many of the Covid–19 restrictions and divisive narratives that were implemented over the first quarter of the 2020s:

There are other factors which play an important role too. My investigations have made abundantly clear to me that those who can resist, who can maintain their strength under marginal circumstances, never feel that they are alone. As long as they can think of their loved ones at home, as long as they can look forward to seeing them again, as long as they know their families are faithfully waiting for them, they can maintain their strength and keep the unconscious drive to give in from taking over their lives.

The love and attention we get and gather in our hearts is the greatest stimulus to endurance. Not only does it provide a goal toward which we can direct our lives, it also gives us inner assurance and a sense of worth that make it possible for us to keep in check the self-destroying conflicts. This knowledge of loving and being loved is not limited to love of family or friends. People in whom a religious faith or a political conviction is deeply rooted, living thing have this same sense of belonging.[14]

Thinking about some of the restrictions/laws/regulations/guidance/mandates/mantras for Covid–19 that were implemented by the UK and other governments (e.g. Australia, China)—a mass of rules which involved forbidding family gatherings, breaking up worship services, banning hospital or care home visits, confinement to one’s home, quarantine facilities, and nagging not to speak to people in the shop or the street (or sit on a park bench)—in light of Meerloo’s findings makes for sobering revelation.

The behavioural scientists behind these measures will have been well aware of the concomitant psychological impact: that they would lead to people breaking down, committing suicide, and even dying. As UK Column’s nursing correspondent Debi Evans often observes, those who work in hospitals with the seriously ill are very aware of the phenomenon of how the touch, voice and mere presence of a loved one or friend is enough to keep a struggler from dying.

Therefore, when the elderly were prevented from seeing their family or friends in a care home setting, that may have been the tipping point for many elderly people to give up and die. The fact that our respective governments (and behavioural scientists; e.g. SPI-B of SAGE) knew this would be an effect of their policies can only lead me to one conclusion: criminal prosecutions should take place for those who pushed these harmful policies. They are knowingly complicit in the death of people.

Read the full article on UK Column News:


[2] Alexander Dugin, The Great Awakening vs the Great Reset (London: Arktos, 2021), 69.


[4] Philip Darrell Collins & Paul David Collins, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An examination of epistemic autocracy from the 19th to the 21st century (BookSurge, LLC), 2006, 3.

[5] See my article on the UK Column website, Psychological Attack on the UK, here:

[6] Phillip Darrell Collins & Paul David Collins, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An examination of epistemic autocracy from the 19th to the 21st century (BookSurge, LLC, 2006), 340-341.

[7] George, Orwell, 1984 (London, Penguin Books, 2003 edition), 307.

[8] Alexander Dugin, The Great Awakening vs the Great Reset (London: Arktos, 2021), 69.



[11] See my article on the UK Column website, We are all Pavlov’s dogs now, here:

[12] Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The psychology of thought control, menticide and brainwashing (Mansfield Centre, CT, Martino Publishing, 2015), 279.

[13] Ibid., 280.

[14] Ibid., 280.