Censorship of Truth:
Keeping You from What You Need

Last Update: 24 January 2024

What's the Issue?

Establishment information gatekeepers preventing certain kinds of information & opinions from reaching the Public.

Why does it Matter?

  1. Without a correct perception of the truth of an issue, howevermuch you might want to intervene, you can't hope to intervene on the right side or in the right way.

  2. Without open sharing of ideas, you can't reasonably expect to find the truth.

  3. All humans have a piece of the universal truth, and we need to allow them to share it.

  4. It's the unconventional information which is the most needed. That information has the greatest potential to learn from.

Keys to Undertand the Truth on this Issue:

  1. Secure people don’t want censorship. Information is no threat to them.

  2. Those who speak the truth don’t want censorship. They aren't threatened by lies, which an open sharing of truth will always eventually expose.

What the Problem Is:

Mainstream news and even social media channels are becoming surprisingly uniform in their support of even the most impossible narratives, and this is a critical impairment for us to know the right way forward in anything, leaving us in critical danger of going the wrong way to our harm and the harm of future generations. For example, it is impossible for two aluminum plane impacts to entirely disintegrate three steel skyscrapers, as it is for a vaccine followed by serious harms and for which longterm effects cannot yet be known to be 'safe', yet mainstream news has failed to expose these realities supporting fantasies instead.

The influence over public news agencies, to guide them to one unchallenged narrative, is so strong that we can sometimes see different news outlets actually parroting the exact-same wording, even on controversial subjects, in their broadcasts: News Anchors Reading From the EXACT Same Script.

More than a need for freedom and individuality of expression, we also need to increase, rather than decrease, criticism of presentations to expose flaws in them, no matter how established the flaws are in society. Where would, for example, the issue of slavery be if no one was permitted to criticize it?

Ultimately all good and security depends on truth which depens on freedom of expression. As Mr. Roman Barber puts it, 'Through speech we defend all other rights': ‘Free speech is the holy grail of all rights’: Conservative candidate slams Trudeau’s ‘censorship state’

More than ever, we depend on individual sharing of information to get the truth out, which is the foundation of safety in decision-making.

Censorship is different from Privacy

Censorship is trying to deny people information which they have a moral right to know. Privacy is trying to deny people access to information they have no moral right to know. Censorship is bad, while privacy is good.

How Censorship Works Against the Public Good:

  1. Censorship can leave you without the information you need in time to make the right decisons to keep you and your family truly safe

    2. For example, the COVID-19 vaccines were publicly proclaimed by many officials as 'safe', after which many people experienced harms or death, some of them proven due to the vaccine. These harms were known by industry and Government early in the vaccination program, but the information was kept secret from the Public until it was successfully force-revealed too late by court order. Vaccination is irreversible. Even years after the vaccine rollout, many Governments are still fighting the release of data which might put the vaccination program in a negative light.

  2. Censorship creates an unfair playing field for information in Society

    3. By definition, censorship artificially favours certain narratives while disadvantaging others in society. If the censorship is strong enough, although the truth would normally rise to the top in the Public arena, the Public is left believing lies indefinitely.

  3. Censorship is anti-human

    1. Censorship at least temporarily makes humanity less knowledgeable, because, by definition, it reduces the information humanity has access to know.

    2. Censorship can not only restrict information, but destroy it: even destroying hard evidence. That is an irreversible loss of knowledge to humanity.

    3. Censorship cripples human conscious evolution because it leaves humanity to believe lies indefinitly due to lack of challenging information.

  4. Censorship can be used against Truth

    5. Truth is information, and needs to be disseminated to reach its full benefit for humanity.

    The Establishment cannot go after truth as it is, and be accepted, since that would be blatantly immoral. What they like to do first is redefine any information, even if true, as though an evil, specificially under the label 'misinformation', so that they can be seen as attacking an evil. Presumably for this reason, misinformation initiatives and legislation rarely define what misinformation is, the implication being that it's anything contrary to the accepted narrative of whoever enforces the laws or runs the initiatives.

    It's OK to object to someone's claims by showing how they are false, but it's extremely stifling to human rights, truth, and progress to actually prevent counter-narratives from being heard in the first place. If counter-narratives cannot be heard, the Public will have little or no ability to detect when narratives are wrong, and that is an extremely dangerous thing tantamount to mental enslavement.

  5. Attacks on Truth-as-'misinformation' might also attack hard evidence.

    6. Alarmingly, when even hard evidence can be labelled 'misinformation' for being inconvenient to the official narrative, it can also be censored or destroyed.

  6. Misinformation can come from Government and we Need a Defense.

    7. The assumption that Government never lies but individuals do, keeps the censorship focused on unconventional informtion and away from Establishment-promoted information, no matter how blatantly false. For example, it stands as the official story that two relatively flimsy airplanes turned three steel skyscrapers into powder in Manhattan during the 9/11 attacks, even though that's physically impossible.

    When Government lies, the harm is often major: such as starting a war, or a nation-wide intervention which might harm millions of people.

    If we aren't allowed access to the truth, we have no foundation for a defense: we wont' even know there is something to defend from.

How the Censorship is Implemented

  1. Censorship by Public Law

    2. Governments have been making laws which attack 'malinformation' or 'misinformation' without defining what that is, leaving the definition of that effectively up to Government. In practice, this targets anyone who shares information critical of the Government narrative or performance, regardless if what they say is true or what evidence they have.

    They might even be labelled as 'terrorists', by Government, seemingly for the purpose of bringing anti-terrorism laws against such news sources.

    Alternatively, by law, the Government can assume direct ban or control of news agencies.

  2. Government Censorship through Seemingly Voluntary Cooperation of Social Medial Platforms

    3. The great weakness of computers, and their communications, is that the Users aren't usually the ones who program them, and these machines serve who program them. Moreover, these machines don't need to disclose so many internal actions to Users at all.

    Consequently, there are many ways to restrict information you might attempt to share publicly, especially through centralized platforms, including: blocking the transmission, sorting the transmission into a 'junk' folder on the receiver end, actually deleting the information from the receivers online storage, deleting the information where it is published electronically (usually website). For example, if government were to suddenly decide that they want to stop the spread of religion 'A', they can quickly direct the computers to remove all posts and messages on social media about that religion, and all search results on websites of that religion. Doing that, in a society primarily interacting electronically, you severely cripple the spread of the religion.

    The incentive to cooperate, on the corporation side, is not obvious. It may be profit-based, such as through grants or advertising from Government. It may also be simply a shadow-government agreement of leaders in Government and key media corporations cooperating to fulfill censorship desired by even higher powers.

  3. Direct Government Ownership or Control of News Agencies

    • News media editing Video Coverage to Remove things the Government doesnt want It's People to see Presumably this is Government-dirercted cooperation of news media companies. For example, during extremely strict COVID-19 lockdowns in 2022, when most other countries had lifted them, the Chinese government didn't want its people to realize most other countries were better off. Example 28 Nov, 2022: China censors maskless crowd

  4. Direct Government Attack on Journalists, Independent News Agencies:

    5.

  5. Direct Government Interruption of Civilian Electronic Communications

    6. This is rarely used, presumably because people would otherwise not accept these communication systems if centralized interruption was frequent. Examples include:

  6. Direct Government attacks to destroy evidence

  7. Excessively protective efforts to obscure the location

    8. For example, although our Society has widely embraced using animals for experimentation or food, normally such locations not only have no public access, but are so hidden, that even living, working, or studying in teh same area or even the same building you might not know it's there. For example, animal experimentation locations are normally so well hidden in hospitals and universities that there are no such signs to it and it has no windows or clouded windows.

    If it's something widely embraced by the Public, why hide it? Maybe because the perception the Public has been given is a false one, the reality is much worse, and that's the secret to keep.

  8. Excessively protective employee agreements

    9. It is very common for Governments to use levels of 'security clearance' and corporations to use 'non-disclosure agreements', against threat of severe penalties, for any kind of disclosure of information. Presumably for this reason, whistleblowers are rare and easily and severely attacked through the legal system if and when they do go public.

    Such agreements are done on an assumption that the Government or corporation has a moral right and need to protect their information, but although that is true for certain types of information, it is not true for other types, and these 'gag' agreements normally force the person agreeing to this to keep both types of secrets equally. For example, if you work for the military, it is morally right for you to not reveal the exact location of troops to the Public, but if you witnessed a war crime, that should be revealed Publicly for justice. Similarly, if you work in a hospital under a non-disclosure agreement, it is moral for you to keep patients' personal information private, but if you witness a physican effectively murder someone, you should be free to report that to the Police and not need to worry about penalties from your non-disclosure agreement.

  9. Statutory laws which penalize exposing realities to the Public

    10. Even without a non-disclosure agreement, Governments sometimes make it illegal for anyone to film or otherwise reveal abuses: not even to the most vulnerable innocents. For example, it's not uncommon for Governments to pass laws banning anyone from filming how agricultural 'food' animals are actually treated.

  10. Leaders encouraging trust rather than individual verification.

    11. The Establishment typically discourages critical thinking in promoting truth based on trust of them or their appointed experts, rather than encouraging anyone to researching issues themselves, or analyze evidence provided by government to the Public. Typically, Government claims they have evidence but don't reveal it directly: either not at all or only as interpreted by their experts.

  11. Establishment-Controlled Leaks

    12. The most clever mechanism of all, which the Establishment seems to use, to effectively censor information is, ironically, to let it get out to the Public only through disrespected channels which are unlikely to be believed: such as people already labelled 'conspiracy theorists'. There is a spiritual debt to deceiving people, but if you let the truth out through a disrespected channel, you prevent that spiritual debt (because you reveealed the truth) and it's not your spiritual responsibilty that the People, through pre-existing contempt, chose not to believe that person no matter what they presented. Moreover, once this is established, even a credible (meaning socially respected) reporter would have reason to hesitate to report similar news in fear of being brought down to the disrespect of those who already promote that kind of news.

  12. Censorship by Social Media Platforms Working to Censor Communication in Defense of Conventional Narratives Seemingly on their Own Initiative

  13. Hiring people to post on social media in strong support of official narratives, as though operating on their individual opinion only, swaying perception of majority public opinion

  14. Government Prosection for Exposing Establishment Harms but not for Performing Them

    We're in a legal system now where it's often much more legally punished to expose something that's harmful (ie. cruel or dangerous to the innocent) than it is for those performing it even the very same harms being exposed, so long as the harm is within Establishment activities. This problem has become common for whisteblowers of harmful Establishment activities, where the Establishment attempts to prosecute the whistleblower but not the people behind the wrongs they were exposing. Examples include:

    • Industrial Animal Cruelty: Animal cruelty by established industries is typically illegal to expose but not to perform. An example: 2 People Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail in Excelsior Hog Farm Trial.

    • Government intrusions into Public Privacy. Think Ed Snowden.

    • Criticism of COVID-19 Vaccines. If you are a physician and you say the vaccines are dangerous, you could lose your job. If you go the other way and admininster it to 1000 people and some of them become dead or permanently disabled as a result, you are legally immune and socially protected from criticism.

    • Speaking against the Narrative being more heavily punished, even as emotional harm, than mass physical harm. So How Much In Damages Are THEY Going To Pay? David Icke Dot-Connector Videocast

  15. Censorship by Civil Lawfare

    16. This is a weaponization of the civil legal system to deliberately bring it against someone to stop them from doing something you don't like them doing, even if it is not immoral, in a way disruptive to their work including harmful to them personnally on some level, including prison and/or oppressive fines or legal fees or even just the hassles to defend themselves.

    Government do this easily by writing or rewriting if not interpreting laws (by Government-appointed judges) any way they want, as well as directing hired law enforcement and prosecution attorneys to focus prosecution on the people they want focused on.

    For civil lawfare, the common tactic is to sue for harms of some kind, even emotional harms that someone else's speech causes you, which is generally accepted if the speech is against the conventional narrative, which tends to make it veiwed as wrongful.

    Being morally innnocent isn't legal safety, and even if legally innnocent, the stress and expense of mounting a defense tends to be public-paid for Governnment but draining for activists.

    Examples:

    Yet to prosecute someone with unheard of astronomical judgements for mere words against the official narrative, while ignoring parties spearheading the official narrative having caused terrible physical harms directly and in following their false information, is an obvious weaponization of the courts against anyone who questions what our society believes and does.

    Examples of people or organizations who should definitely be prosecuted if reporting something false is punishable:

  16. Psychological Censorship by Allowing Some Unconventional Content, so long as It is Presented in a Manner Unlikely to be Believed

    17. This is the best-case scenario for the Estalibhsment: to tell the truth without it being believed. In this way the greatly relieve their moral and spiritual guilt for deceiving us, because it was our choice to not believe the information.

  17. Other Corporate Cancellation

    1. Immedate cancellation of participants from events (who offend in this way)

    2. Immediate firing of employees (who offend in this way)

    3. Rapid deplatforming of content creators (who offend in this way), where not even a president is safe.

    4. Closure or freezing of bank or other financial accounts

  18. Establishment Discouragement from listening to your Friends and Family

    19. That's right. We're actually discouraged from listening to each other but encouraged to listen to the Establishment only (Government, their appointed experts, mainstream media, and established industry).

    As for holiday settings, it's also common for the host to insist that no one discuss controversial topics, leaving only mainstream news as the unchallenged source.

    Notice that the advocacy is for automatic and insistent dismissal of any anti-Establishment allegations without fairly considering any related arguments or evidence even if offered. The advice is based on a prejudiced attitude that nothing anti-Establishment can be true and you need to discourage such ideas in other people.

    One of the arguments in favour of this kind of prejudiced censorship is the allegation that so-called 'conspiracy theorists' only believe those things to achieve a feeling of superiority over others (such as discussed in this article). This kind of allegation kindles your own pride and encourages you to defend your honour by teaching the 'conspiracy theorist' a lesson by pre-deciding not to listen to them. Unfortunately although superiority might be one reason why people believe a conspiracy theory, as well as improve themseleves in all sorts of ways (like education), it does't give a reasonable explanation of why they would share such priviledged information freely, thereby surrendering their alleged superiority (how many electricians teach you their job?), as well as risking reprisals from an audience they probably could discern was hostile. The reason is usually a good one: that, true or false, they believe what they say and they want you to know as a warning.

    If you reject anyone's presentation due to prejudice of any kind you are doing something wrong in degrading their value, the same as yours, as a human being. You aren't responsible for why they do what they do, whether for superiority or not. You are responsible for how you respond to it. If you respond with prejudice then you are definitely doing something wrong regardless of whether they are or not.

    Ultimately, the resistence of friends and family to having an evidence-based discussion on controversial topics, while deferring to official sources of information, is one of the firmest and saddest proofs of communist attitudes have subtly infiltrated our society. If your family won't even allow you to speak on a topic unless it's what the Government says, then you are living in communism whether it's labelled democracy or not.

    Sure, everyone has the right to choose to listen to whoever they want, but when 'not listening' means prejudice, that's wrong because human rights and dignity demand that no one be prejudiced. Furthermore when nearly everyone chooses, out of their own free will, to trust Establishment claims (eg. vaccines are safe) without requiring any evidence, and dismiss claims from friends & family (eg. vaccines are dangerous) without any evidence being acceptable, then there is something wrong in the way that freedom to choose is used.

    Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.
    --Joseph Goebbels (chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, and their Reich Minister of Propaganda )

The Problem from Experience:

Experience of truth-sharers is typically that most people decide who to listen to never what to listen to. They usually don't about evidence offered them, which goes against what they believe, dismissing it as potential fakery, and refusing to bother to investigate themselves. They look around, decide who seems most reliable to know the truth on an issue, and listen to them for it with absolute trust eschewing all others. For example, they will actually refuse to buy an investment product from someone who appears to be poor, no matter how much sense they admit it makes, and they will only buy fitness products from people with athletic bodies, regardless of whether or not they built that body with the same product.

The greatest indictator of judging truth by trust is that, in personal sharing of information, howevermuch you might offer evidence, most people never ask for or even accept it, never mind actually open it. It's as if evidence is irrelevant in their way of evaluating truth, because in their way, it is, and that disinterest in evidence is the proof.

Why is Censorship Done?

Many people seem to think that censorship is done because Government is somehow 'afraid' of the People finding out the truth and revolting.

That's unlikely to be the reason, because when you have arbitrary control to write any laws you want, borrow and spend public money any way you want to no limit, direct the military, maybe direct the mainstream media, and maybe direct corporations and education and religions organizations, there isn't much in this world to be afraid of. The legal and social tools for the People to be a real threat to the Government normally don't exist.

The motivation by the Establishment to control information is that they don't just want to oppress us by law or force, but, as much as feasible, with our consent. This is done because they are spiritually aware, and concerned about spiritual debts in oppressing others by force, and they want to abuse us while minimizing their spiritual debt for it. They understand that if you can manage to oppress someone with their consent, then you can do that abouse without the spiritual debt. The key to winning that consent is deception, especially to either make sure that the people either don't have the correct information at all, or that they do but only through channels which are already disrespected and unlikely to be believed (which is the spiritually best case for them: they revealed the truth, you chose not to believe it, and you chose the abuse).

What the Reality is:

  1. Truth is best found by prayer (divine) and evidence (mental).

  2. Restricting the sharing of information is extremely dangerous and easily lethal. Even with the best intentions, no one knows everything, and informed consent can only happen with being provided, not witheld, all relevant information.

  3. Who appears to know best might not be who knows best. Knowledge is an internal thing. Even how certain someone sounds might not be an indicator, as fools can be certain about anything, but the more intelligent you are the more ways you can see how something might not be 100% true in certain ways or situations. Unfortunately, realizing those possibilities, though more insightful, can make you sound less certain, and lead listeners to trust you less.

  4. Even if the person you trust does know better than everyone else, that doesn't mean that person has the incentive or intent to tell you the whole truth. Often the highest officials have many other influences on them besides the Public's wellbeing. Sometimes those same officials are even linked to the origin of the problem (as was the case, for example, with medical experts in the COVID-19 crisis being linked to prior gain-of-function researchin on coronaviruses).

  5. Deciding what to listen to, before it is even spoken, based on who is speaking, is prejudice and wrong. It means that you don't consider human beings to be of equal value. It might not be racist, but that's not the only form of prejudice.

  6. The person you trust might not be there to save or compensate you if things go wrong following their products or advice. In many cases they've actually made themselves legally immune from liability for harms.

How to differentiate lies from truth:

In decreasing order of preference:

  1. Prayerfully compare and contrast sources of evidence on the issue. You need the prayer because you can't hope to escape demonic lies on your own power or cleverness alone without God's help. He is the light.

  2. Maintain a habit of take your news from diverse sources rather than one source. This is a wonderful lifestyle habit to improve your grip on truth. By comparing and contrasting you will get a more complete picture of the truth, and it doesn't take much more time to scan headlines from more than one source daily. The more different the source the better (so long as the source is not known to be of enemy intent towards your community or species).

    This method has one weakness: it does depend on truth being published somewhere and popular enough for you to find it. This is why it's so important to support the best news agencies offering the most vitally needed evidence.

  3. Keep an open, humble, and receptive ear when presentations of truth are offered to you on important topics. Don't have contempt for others who offer you evidence, prejudging that such a person shouldn't be listened to. Judge your truth based on the evidence not the presenter. Value other people enough that you will hear them out.

  4. Be open to information from your friends and family before the Establishment.

    Wisdom on this issue is to realize that your friends and family, if they haven't proven their love for you already, at least have a vested interest to keep you independent and unencumbered, so that, at the very least, you won't be a burden they might be called on to assist with. For example, in trying to decide whether vaccines represent a risk of your permanent disability, you might be presented with information from the medical establishment and from your family. It's worth keeping in mind the incentives at play there. If permanent disability happened to you from a vaccine, the medical industry would stand to make much more money on you for the rest of your life (from the vastly increased services you will require, and keeping in mind that they're legally immune to liability for vaccine harms). Your family, on the other hand, would likely suffer tremendously under the burden of your neediness for the rest of your life. Who has more incentive to keep you healthy?

    The idea that you should trust the Establishment before family and friends is deep-seated and is derived from the Government-based school system, the underlying idea of which is that truth comes from Government not family. Resist that lie. Your Creator entrusted you to a family for a reason.

  5. Notice who encourages you to examine the evidence yourself, and how encourages you to trust their authority or expertise. Truth is best based on evidence, rather than any human, and anyone who leads you away from examining the evidence yourself more likely is hiding something. The evidence will show who is right.

What to Do:

  1. Pray for a victory of truth in our society. Yes this actually does something.

  2. Protect freedom of expression at all junctures, especially criticism of ideas however popular or established they are. Otherwise we can never detect if the ideas our society is relying on are wrong, which we need to to save and improve ourselves.

  3. Be aware that most issues have two sides and a history. Strive to know these three things, from diverse sources, before making a decision on anything important.

  4. Consider decisions which affect others at least as morally important to be informed on as decisions which affect you directly.

Back to Homepage

Flag Counter