“Free inquiry on a free platform is the only practice that distinguishes a free from a slave society.”
—Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45
When I was little, I had a poster of a raccoon with his paw over a kitten’s mouth saying, “If there’s anything I can’t stand, it’s someone talking while I’m interrupting.”
I was notorious for interrupting, asking questions, and getting so lost in thought, my mom had an ear doctor test my hearing because I was constantly saying, “What?”
That poster came to mind as I watched the Ministry of Truth campaign against “misinformation” first roll out. Today’s version of that poster would say, “If there’s anything I can’t stand, it’s someone’s information contradicting my disinformation.”
As we all understand by now, when Minitrue defines the “truth” as 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 4 becomes “misinformation.”
If you’re like me, you’ve probably had more than a few brushes with memoryholing and maybe even unpersoning as a result of Big Tech’s mass censorship rollout.
Not that they’d answer, but I’m tempted to ask the censors, What is the danger, if the sources are patently noncredible? Why treat us like infants incapable of assessing the validity of facts for ourselves? If the misinformation is so evidently false, let us see that on our own and the question will be put to rest.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant and so on—but yeah, that’s precisely the problem, isn’t it. Darkness must prevail for their narrative to survive the illuminating exposure of sunlight—even if the gatekeepers have to blot out the sun Bill Gates–style.
A few months ago, I started experimenting with real-world attempts to deprogram New Normalers on a private platform. I’d say it’s about a 70:30 Covidian:free-thinker ratio, not counting those remaining on the sidelines, quietly nodding in agreement but too cautious to speak out.
What I’ve discovered, based on the failures and successes of others as well as myself, is it is nearly impossible to gain traction on the “science” front. Their allegiance to the “experts” and the mainstream narrative is imbued with a religious fervor, and anyone who voices even the most hesitant of concerns is a heretical tin-foil hoax plandemic conspiracy nut.
Plus, any attempt to share compelling evidence from non-mainstream sources results in immediate deletion of the comment with veiled threats of silencing altogether. The mere mention of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, for example, garners instantaneous eradication. Or Dr. David Martin. Or Dr. Mike Yeadon. Or Dr. Robert Malone. Or any one of the thousands of reputable, Nobel Prize–winning and otherwise exceptionally credible scientists and medical experts sounding the alarm. Entering into dialogue about the fraudulent PCR tests, the perils of the spike, the futility and health risks of mask-wearing, the devastation caused by lockdowns, or anything else that requires you to share what they deem “misinformation” is a losing battle from the start.
Subsequently, I jettisoned that approach and focused on the threat of totalitarianism. I introduced historical primary sources such as the interviews with ten Nazis conducted shortly after WWII found in Milton Mayer’s enthralling They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45. Of course, any comparison to the Third Reich immediately draws outcries of false equivalencies, so that approach can backfire, too, but the extensive evidence of parallels I provided generated no further pushback.
I repeatedly reminded the pitchfork wielders of the humanity of their dissident neighbors, cited escalating repressions around the world, elucidated the psychological mechanisms by which they are being manipulated, and advised them not to credulously assume we are immune to tyranny. I directly accused anyone who remains silent during the vilification, persecution, exclusion, incarceration, and worse of their unvaccinated neighbors of being no different from the ordinary Germans who did not speak out about the treatment of the Jews. This upset many of them, of course, but neither could they deny the nearly verbatim propaganda about the unvaccinated being spreaders of disease when I cited historical examples.
I gained a meager amount of traction with one virulent spike-pusher (I’ll call him Ampleforth). We engaged in several exchanges about stampeding authoritarianism, and he agreed it was a concern but fears the virus is a more imminent threat and thus worth risking totalitarianism over. I called out his naïveté and presented more evidence of the correlation between our present climate and the rise of tyranny throughout history, which appeared to give him pause, for a half-second, anyway.
I always kept the conversation cordial and respectful, even while I was eviscerating their arguments. Elevating the dialogue to substantive debate and calling out ad hominem attacks, threats, and false accusations prevented the conversation from devolving into a shouting match.
My foray into these debates started with a post in which Ampleforth reminded everyone of the site’s “misinformation” policy given the “uptick in cases in the area.”
To which I responded:
Thank you for outlining the misinformation policy. It is exhausting having to apply our critical thinking skills to multiple sources of information in our efforts to distinguish propaganda from facts. How much easier it is to outsource our thinking to politicians, megacorporations, and allied media. Obviously, they have our best interests at heart and would never misinform us. They certainly have never done so in the past. For further details on how to enforce such a policy, see the Ministry of Truth reference manual titled Nineteen Eighty-Four. There is also a video tutorial available for quick reference.
Followed up by:
Perhaps Biden should follow in Emmanuel Macron’s footsteps and start penalizing anyone without a “sanitary pass” with a $53,000 fine and a year in jail, where they are sure to be deloused. I hear Room 101 is available, as are several facilities in neighboring Germanic countries. CNN thinks so.
I’ll spare you the additional back-and-forthing I had with the author—which we actually managed to keep surprisingly civil, even achieving consensus on topics such as the PATRIOT Act, government surveillance, and corporate data-gathering. He proposed I start a separate topic about this, but I reminded him that posts like that tend to vanish in a matter of hours.
As if to illustrate my point, one of my subsequent comments was tidily dispatched in the dead of night by a censorship fairy. I was responding to a previous question about coronavirus patents and shared a couple of thought-provoking links related to that:
Someone asked about patents in an earlier thread. This 205-page dossier outlines the patents associated with SARS/coronavirus with documentation dating back to 1998. It was prepared by Dr. David Martin, whose company, M–CAM, has been monitoring violations of the Geneva Convention and the BTWC (Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons) for two decades. He gives specific patent numbers and language. I’ve only glanced at the document myself but thought it might be useful for anyone wishing to research this topic for themselves. To get the gist, watch Dr. Martin’s recent interview with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, where he also outlines relevant patent numbers and dates. No conspiracy theories, no conjecture, just scientifically verifiable data.
I encourage anyone with an open mind to evaluate this information for themselves rather than trusting the word of corporate/social media, Big Tech, government agencies, and pharmaceutical company–funded mouthpieces, who have everything to gain (e.g., trillions of dollars of recurring revenue for pharmaceutical companies, “justification” to restrict individual freedoms and grant absolute powers for governments) from suppressing the scientific facts (“misinformation”) that contradict their carefully crafted disinformation campaign.
I’m not saying any of these statements is true or false as I am still evaluating them myself, but I am more inclined to trust the brave immunologists, virologists, scientists, and pharmaceutical company insiders like Pfizer’s former chief science officer, who are risking their careers, reputations, grant funding, and lives to present thought-provoking evidence exposing the corruption of the zero-liability pharmaceutical companies and allied governments, agencies, and media.
Coincidentally, Ampleforth closed the discussion within moments of my posting that, claiming the post was now being used to propagate the very “misinformation” he had been warning about.
