Censorship of Truth:
Silencing Competing Narratives

Last Update: 30 October, 2023

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.

Parts to the Problem:

  1. Stopping the Sharing of Counter-Narrative Information

  2. The main problem with the war on misinformation is that 'misinformation' isn't clearly defined, but the practical definition is any information which contradict official narratives.

    Similarly, anyone who shares information contrary to the official narrative is automatically degraded as a 'conspiracy theorist', which is considered a reason to dismiss their information, even in the case that they present strong hard evidence of an actual conspiracy!

    It's OK to objec to someone's claims by showing how they are false, but it's extremely stifling to human rights, truth, and progress, on the other hand, 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.

  3. Evidence should NEVER be censored on important issues the Public has a right to know.

  4. Alarmingly, hard evidence is not treated any different from the most wild claims, and is targetted for censorship if it implies something which conflicts with official narratives.

  5. Misinformation doesn't just come from individuals but also from Government.

  6. The unspoken premise of the 'war on misinformation', that official information is always true, is false. Just look into any one of so many controversial issues and it's usually controversial because it's full of imposibilities which Government insists are the truth or reveals as lies long after the fact. For example, there was actually no attack from the Vietnamese which the Americans said happened as pretext to entry into that war.

    The Public also accepts Government secrecy (which has many levels of security clearance) as though a necessity, and seems to accept that regular lies are needed to maintain that secrecy.

  7. Adults should be encouraged to think critically, not be shielded from other information on the assumption that they shouldn't or can't.

  8. When officials speak, do they tell you to trust official sources, and/or trust the science, or do they tell you to do your own research?

    Government seems to discourage critical thinking, perhaps because that would expose so much they do as wrong which they portray as not existing or right.

  9. The obvious motivation for a 'misinformation' that the counter-narrative information is true.

  10. If the information wasn't true, it would be all too easy to disprove it; you certainly wouldn't need to make a law to prevent anyone sharing it.

    Being true, counter-narrative information is even mmore important than merely a human right of expression; rather it is vital for human progerss and protection.

  11. Why is 'Misinformation' proclaimed as such a threat now?

  12. Governments have started pushing draconian measures, but are reluctant to absolutely force them on us. They want them adopted with our consent, despite them being against our interest. That requires decieving us into believing that what is bad for us is good for us, at least long enough to pass the measures through.

How the Censorship is Implemented

  1. 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

  2. Direct Government Attack on Journalists and Independent News Agencies, and/or Other Independent News Sources

  3. Direct Government Interruption of Civilian Electronic Communications

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

  5. Other Censorship by Public Law

  6. 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.

  7. Government Censorship through Voluntary Cooperation of Social Medial Platforms

  8. 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.

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

  10. 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

  • 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

  • Censorship by Civil Lawfare

  • 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 laws 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.


    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:

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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Establishment Discouragement from listening to your Friends and Family

  • 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.

    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 know 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. Take it upon yourself to actively confirm claims related to critical decisions you are expeted to make, such as to support a war or accept an irreversible medical treatment. You are responsible for your decisions and support, so you must make the effort to confirm that the information handed to you is actually true.

    Back to Homepage

    Flag Counter