Who Gets To Decide’s What “The Truth” Is – and Why Is Censorship Backfiring on Big Tech Media?


What is “The Truth”?

There are certain fundamental truths like the sun coming up in the morning and water being wet that are not in dispute. When it comes to more complex issues, however, the truth is often elusive, especially about uncommon events that are still unfolding like the Coronavirus. This is particularly true when vested interests and hidden agendas may be exposed in the process.

When you limit information from the discussion, it only serves to reduce our understanding of the issue. We need all available information to make sound decisions, not just some that a small group of people deems to be credible; otherwise, the picture is incomplete.

It’s only through new data, analysis, dialogue, and debate that we can peel back the layers of a complicated issue to discover what we believe to be correct. Even then, that will just be our perspective of the truth at that time. New information can and will change our understanding of what we previously thought to be true.

Establishing the truth about issues that we do not fully understand is not a static idea, but one that is fluid and always changing. There are many “truths,” we thought to be correct twenty or thirty years ago that are now obsolete due to new information.

The Truth is Always Changing

For years, smoking cigarettes was not considered to be harmful to our health. Doctors even promoted cigarettes. That was our collective truth during that period. Since then, new information has completely changed that “truth.” This changing “truth” happens more often than we think. One year, drinking coffee is good for us, and the next year a new study comes out saying the exact opposite.

Much of this is not about the truth and just marketing. There are countless more examples of this. We often hear the phrase “the science is settled” on a particular issue, but that’s not possible. Science, by nature, is always evolving with new information. So is our evolving perception of what we believe to be true. The point is, there is no one absolute truth, only our best understanding of what we believe to be “true” based on the available data at that particular point in time.


Truth is Different For Everyone

Truth can also vary wildly according to our personal perspective. Every one of us has a built-in bias that colors our world and shapes our belief system. Ultimately, what we believe to be true is just our perspective based on the information we have been exposed to up until that point in time. Our perceptions play a significant role in how we experience reality.

The dress that broke the internet (the color the world could not agree on) is a perfect example of how our perception plays into what we believe to be true. So how can we possibly hope to arbitrate “the truth” with so many fluctuating dynamics at play? We can’t, and thinking that we can is preposterous. These are the reason the idea of censorship is so ridiculous. The only reason to censor information is for control.


Censorsing Dr. Erickson & Dr. Massihi

Two doctors who run an urgent care medical clinic in Bakersfield, California, gave a video presentation about what they are encountering with their patients during the Covid-19 “pandemic.”

Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi presented their data, as well as other data collected around the world, which gave us new insight into this virus. These are two well-educated, well-spoken doctors who eloquently and articulately laid out the facts according to their hands-on experiences.

The two doctors have been studying microbiology & immunology for a combined 40 years, and Dr. Massihi teaches immunology. Based on their information, and the way this virus behaves, they questioned whether the self-isolation lockdown is effective.

Their data showed that the mortality rate of Covid-19 was far less than the figures that have been previously reported. Based on the data they reviewed, the recovery rate of this virus is over 98%.

Does it make sense to shut down our economy from a virus with a fatality rate similar to seasonal influenza? They also discuss the many adverse tertiary effects of sheltering in place like alcohol abuse and domestic violence, just to name a few. We linked the video presentation below and want to encourage everyone to watch their compelling review of the data.

Why Is The World Health Organization Beyond Reproach?

The doctor’s conclusions were based on their own real-life experiences, combined with all the data they studied. From an immunological perspective, they tell us that sheltering in place for healthy people reduces the immune system’s ability to cope with the disease. Their information seems to be corroborated through other populations that did not self-isolate, like Sweden.

The doctors also stated that they are being pressured to attribute more fatalities from Covid-19 than actually happened. This statement probably didn’t sit well with the powers that be and could be the real reason YouTube removed the video. Youtube stated that they would remove any videos that contradict The World Health Organization guidelines. The World Health Organization has been consistently one step behind this virus, but somehow they are portrayed as this beacon of “truth” that is beyond reproach.

There have been so many holes in this entire Covid-19 story, and so many agendas in play, making it difficult to know what is true or not. We need more brave doctors like Dr. Erickson and Dr. Massihi to speak up. We don’t have to agree with the doctors’ conclusions and recommendations, but we do need their input in our search for the truth.

We hear corporate news pundits speculate about this pandemic all day every day. These pundits are far less qualified and far more removed from the actual crisis, yet their voices are not being censored. That is because they are part of the official narrative designed to keep people in fear and forfeit their rights.

Here is Dr. Erickson’s and Dr. Massihi’s censored video on Bitchute.com & Minds.com. So how effective was banning the video? Not that effective at all. Now people will just go to free-speech platforms to watch the video.

Related Article: The Corporate Media is Weaponized Infotainment Meant to Control Us… Turn It Off & Reclaim Your Mind

Why Censorship is So Dangerous

Examining new perspectives and unconventional viewpoints is the only way humanity can evolve. If we cannot honestly and openly criticize ourselves and our policies, how can we ever expect to improve our circumstances? All topics should be open for discussion, no matter how controversial they may be or whose interests are exposed. Ideas and information should be challenged by the Socratic Method – not removed or suppressed by agenda-driven corporations with a monopoly over global communications.

As most of my readers know, I’m not a big fan of corporate news, but Tucker Carlson made many excellent points about censoring Dr. Erickson’s video presentation. Carlson and guest, Dave Rubin, discuss the removal of the doctor’s video and what censorship like this means for our nation. Are we following in the footsteps of authoritarian regimes like China? It sure looks that way.


Censorship Is Backfiring

In my opinion, one of the best things to happen to Dr. Erickson’s and Dr. Massihi’s presentation video was to be removed from Youtube. Let me be clear; I don’t agree with censorship at all, but by removing the video, they brought more attention to it while simultaneously exposing their true agenda. This is not an isolated incident either, censorship has increased sharply over the last several years. This just happens to be the most high profile example.

What the big tech companies do not realize is that by censoring information, they are only piquing more interest by way of the Streisand effect. They also add credibility to the video by making it too hot for Youtube while diminishing their own brand. If you tell people they can’t have something – it only makes them want it more. What these tech companies are also doing is re-designing their news formats based on the failed corporate media model.

One of the reasons platforms like Youtube became popular was that people could find unique content that could not be found in traditional media sources. Facebook was supposedly started to connect people. But now, if people connect and organize behind certain ideologies that Facebook doesn’t approve of, they are punished.

It’s become so obvious that their censorship policies have nothing to do making their platforms “safe” as they love to say. It’s all about controlling the narrative. Now, Facebook and Google/Youtube promote corporate media channels above all other content in their feeds. The world is waking up and this is not the formula that will keep these platforms relevant in the years to come.


Free Speech Media is Growing

By censoring information, these companies are indirectly claiming to know what’s true and false. Youtube has made a big mistake by taking on the impossible role of determining what the truth is. This is a task that they cannot possibly fulfill without alienating their community and further damaging their brand. By making themselves arbiters of the truth, they will only drive more people to free speech platforms like Bitchute and Minds.

Within 24 hours of Dr. Erickson’s video presentation removal from YouTube, mirrored copies were uploaded on Minds and Bitchute. So censor all you want YouTube, Google, Twitter, and Facebook. You’re only accelerating your demise. The next generation of human connectivity is already here, and they’re about to render your establishment models obsolete.

This blatant censorship goes a long way helping to onboard people to new free speech platforms. The big tech platforms are getting less interesting or cooler every day. One day we will look back at YouTube/Google, Facebook the same way we look at the dinosaur corporate media now. I already see them that way, and I’m not alone.

Related Article: What is the Red-Pill Media and Why Are They So Important For Our Future