Censorship Continues to Erode Democracy
RFK, Jr. Faces Ironic Attempts at Censorship During His Testimony Against Censorship
Dark Ages 2.0 Update
Watch on Censorship Erodes Democracy on Rumble (click image).
Last week RFK, Jr. was invited to testify at the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. The Democrat representatives there ambitiously attempted to silence him through a variety of tactics that clearly had an absence of integrity and ethics. Ironically, people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Stacey Plaskett seemed oblivious to their continued preference for censorship at the hearing on the weaponization of censorship. Here is a good overview.
I would be surprised if someone with a rational mind and a modicum of self-awareness protecting them from extreme tribalistic blind loyalty could stomach the way RFK, Jr. was treated. The amount of logical fallacies these Democrats projected to silence Bobby Kennedy in their infantile temper tantrums were astounded and shameful. I am nonpartisan but this was a bad look for the Dems, in particular.
Regardless of one’s stance on RFK, Jr. or partisan leanings, it seems to me that the value of the first amendment and the advancement of truth through civil debate would be a point of agreement for all who care about the fundamental fabric of a free society.
Kennedy spoke to this himself in saying, “debate, congenial respectful debate, is the fertilizer, it's the water, it's the sunlight for our democracy. We need to be talking to each other”.
“Thomas Jefferson referred to it as the basis for democracy. It sets us apart from all of the previous forms of government. We need to be able to talk and the first amendment was not written for easy speech, it was written for the speech that nobody likes you for.”
That is exactly it. We need to be able to hear things that offend us and that we don’t agree with. When we disallow this, we create echo chambers of compliance that perpetuate a tribalism that deprioritizes truth over loyalty to the team. That is dangerous.
Proper science is not based on consensus, even if Neil deGrasse Tyson says so. If it was, the Earth would still be the center of the universe and drilling holes in people’s heads could be seen at a clinic near you. Heterodoxical ideas are vital in the process towards better understanding, assessments of validity, and the progress of science.
As Kennedy alluded to, it is especially important that we allow all ideas that do not directly cause violence to be heard, even if they are erroneous, seemingly ludicrous and unpopular. By doing this, a few important things are allowed to transpire.
These ideas can have the opportunity to test the prevailing ideas, which either further solidify the current theories or illuminate their shortcomings. This is essential for the advancement of putting the best rationale into practice.
These ideas are exposed to the light. If they are ill-formed and error-laden, this will be exposed and consequently, those who have been taken by them might be redeemed towards the truth or more accurate ideas.
If the ideas are potentially misleading and dangerous, instead of being allowed to fester in a silo of those who uncritically accept them, they have to withstand the fires of logical critique in the public square. This will result in the attrition of many adherents to these poor ideas who would otherwise likely never be converted to a more reasonable stance. When the ideas stay underground, they fester and grow. They are unchecked. If better ideas exist, they should be more than willing to be challenged.
If we have a free market of ideas, the best ideas will rise to the top and become prevalent. However, this should be an ongoing process. Any idea worth it’s weight in the real world should be able to withstand an onslaught and remain standing through its merit as logical and true.
When the government - or any other authority - decides what is shared and what is suppressed, we find ourselves in an Orwellian paternalistic situation which devalues citizens as not being worthy to make their own discernment. This is a statement that either the government believes people are too stupid to see the truth or that the government does not want the people to have the freedom to make up their own mind. Either scenario is a manifestation of totalitarianism. The government is meant to work for the people. It is meant to represent the people and not cut them out of the process. If a Western democracy behaves like this, it essentially becomes an understated version of China, North Korea, or any other regime that infantilizes the people and dictates their truth over what is THE truth.
Kennedy points out the Orwellian Newspeak that has been weaponized by the government and the media to suppress dissidents and critics of the one narrative to rule them all.
“By the way they had to invent a new word called mal-information to censor people like me. There was no misinformation on my Instagram account. Everything I put on that account was cited and sourced from peer-reviewed publications or government databases. Nobody has ever pointed to a single piece of misinformation that I published. I was removed for something they called mal-information. Mal-information is information that is true but it's inconvenient to the government - that they don't want people to hear.” — RFK, Jr.
There will be people who do not agree with me here. There will be people who dismiss the idea that information that is cited, published and peer-reviewed has been censored. Unfortunately, I have experienced this firsthand. There are many examples of this. If you are just starting to explore the censorship that has been prevalent over the last few years (and before), then look up doctors Aseem Malhotra and Peter McCullough to start.
Here is one example for you:
It is shocking that this is not being discussed in the open and presented in the mainstream media for open debate amongst experts on both sides. Why not? What are they afraid of?
If you ask me, it has been clear from early 2020 that the fanatical fervour with which the vaccines were pushed were a clear sign of the unscientific and unethical agenda that prized compliance and control over truth, health, and freedom. I could go on and on about this. You can read some of my articles from 2022 for more on it too. Essentially, when heterodoxical ideas are censored and smeared without an opportunity for defense, we know that the objective does not have to do with the well-being of the people or the promotion potentially more effective medical approaches.
I have little doubt that there has been and continues to be a significant cover-up for the incompetence, negligence, and corruption of those actors who perpetrated this psychological operation and transfer of wealth, control, and power.
Slowly and quietly, the colluding organizations are admitting what they vehemently denied for so long. Not only did they deny the harms, the lack of safety and the ineffectiveness of these pseudo-vaccines but they actively tried to destroy people who cared enough to warn of these problems. This is what RFK, Jr. was testifying about.
Here is an example of the dangers that have been covered up. This is now admitted by the WHO and this short clip is of Dr. John Campbell - who has been very reserved in his critique of the vaccines - so you know when he says something it comes from a place of significant evidence and certitude.
Let me say once again, it doesn’t even matter if Kennedy (or the others) are right, their voices should be heard. If we support the silencing of their words today, do not be surprised when your words are silenced in the future.
Censorship is antithetical to the tenets of Western civilization, our constitution and inalienable rights. We need to be aware of the slippery slope of totalitarianism that has been encroaching on us more and more. We need to drive it back and never let our guard down. Those who thirst after this kind of power and control will continue to do so. They need to be recognized and neutralized.
What do you think?
The Weekly Rant
On Censorship (WATCH):
(Some technical issues led to the video segments of me being omitted but the audio is good.)
What do you think?