Let’s be absolutely real about this. The people who are demanding censorship to prevent “misinformation” aren’t listening to the material they are so inflamed by. They haven’t considered the truth value of what they propose to delete. They’ve decided out of hand, based on rumors, that these “unacceptable views” must be false, since they contradict what else they’ve heard.
So they aren’t trying to protect themselves from “misinformation” with this move. They are not affected by it, and neither are the legions of lemmings who rely on “fact-checkers” to assess truth value. They are only trying to control the minds of those who disagree with them.
If “misinformation” were the issue, we’d be talking about mainstream media, who have made and still make easily disproven claims on a daily and nightly basis. We’d be talking about the extraordinary amount of empirically unfounded statements made by public health officials. We’d be talking about manipulating the press to create the appearance of consensus in the scientific community, by systematically discrediting any qualified expert breaking ranks.
Instead, we’re pretending that the views and opinions of certain qualified experts are false on their face, because they challenge the medical-industrial complex. Instead of answering their evidence, great campaigns are undertaken to silence them, using the specious reasoning that such misinformation is “dangerous”.
How do we know? So-and-so said so. In other words, these experts are wrong, because these other experts disagree with them. What qualifies these debunkers, then? It can’t be their degrees, experience, or publications, because these no longer serve to buttress professional opinions. The censored scientists have all of these.
The tortured notion is that if people hear certain ideas, they’ll make dangerous decisons, like treating an infection instead of exhausting the immune system with prophylactic gene therapy. They can’t explain why this is so dangerous, but resort to babbling rhetoric about politics, or their own misinformed claims about such topics.
What the censors are revealing is that they don’t believe the public is capable of making up their own minds. This is an act of abject projection, since the mass media is quite conscious that they have the population effectively hypnotized. The issue isn’t truth; it’s turf. The dissidents are encroaching on conquered terrain.
Are we supposed to accept this decree from on high, without even hearing the heresy in question? Will we accept that? What if some foreign policy experts, a minority of them, come together to protest an unnecessary and bloody war? What if consumer advocates go on the circuit to explain the dangers of a new popular product on the market?
Not only do these dissidents have a right to their opinions, we have a right to them. Applying a “truth” standard to free speech means that any opinion can be declared to be false, which means that the authorities can debunk any expose, fact-check any independent assessment of the science, and privilege free speech for those who disseminate the dominant narrative.
The real “misinformation” is that there is but one truth, and it can be delivered only by the plutocracy.