Covid Censorship: Tips for Deprogramming Sleeping Minds


What's lost in the Censorship sauce

They don't call it censorship. They call it "stopping the spread of misinformation."

What many people do not realize is that tyrants always have prepared excuses and euphemisms for engaging in censorship. No tyrant was ever like, "I'm going to burn all these books because I'm an asshole! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!!"

No, they always hide behind nice or necessary-sounding justifications like "moral protection of the youth" or "defeating our enemies" or "the public health."

So last week when the White House announced that it had been and would continue to pressure social media companies to block the accounts of people posting Covid vaccine "misinformation," everyone with a minimal understanding of history understood that what they really meant was that they are engaging in censorship and violating the US government's own free speech principles, enshrined in its Constitution.

Everyone else rolled over in their sleep and mumbled "Yes, it's for the public health."

The comfortably sleeping masses will therefore not question what the administration is trying to hide about itself--for all censorship is authoritarian projection, at its core.

So we have to sneak in with questions of our own. Part of the deprogramming process is asking questions that the faulty mental program cannot answer satisfactorily. If you make arguments and assertions, the program shuts them down by labeling them, not by addressing them. For instance, they might label your argument a "conspiracy theory", which makes you a "conspiracy theorist", and therefore a persona non grata. You'll get no more access to that particular mind.


What information have we not been exposed to because of media bias, White House pressure, and YouTube/Facebook algorithms? Could some of this information be coming from from virologists and medical professionals in the field? Maybe it is just mistakenly swept away in the rush to tackle misinformation?

If that creates an opening, you can go on:

Would you like to hear one of the inventors of mRNA vaccine technology weigh in on Covid vaccines? Or how about a rural doctor who noticed some worrisome vaccine side effects in as many as 62% of his patients? Or perhaps you might like to read the data coming in right now from various countries about the Delta variant? Well, too bad. These stories, this data, has been eradicated from your media consumption trail. Scrubbed away with industrial strength bleach. In order to find it, you have to be actively seeking it, and in many cases you must use decentralized search engines and media platforms because even Google won't show it to you in your search results.

The slumbering do not realize that they are not trusted to form their own opinions and make their own decisions based on a thorough reading of the available information, both for and against. They don't understand that it's not just rando conspiracy theorists that are being censored. We cattle are not trusted to review information put out by actual experts if it goes against or even questions the official narrative.


Why is that? Why are we not trusted?

It can only be one (or both) of two reasons.

  1. The official story is full of deception.
  2. You're considered by those at the helm of media, government, and social institutions to be too stupid to form your own opinions and make your own decisions.

That should insult every one of us. But over half the population slumbers on, drooling on their pillows.

Today's Galileos, Sacrificed on the Altar of Consensus

I keep seeing this meme bandied about by the sleepwalkers. The reasoning in this argument almost makes sense if you don't look too closely at it, so I understand why this particular propaganda works so well to quell the questioning of the new authority. But ultimately, this line of thinking is disastrous.


Yes, there is a trend in our culture of believing and asserting that all points of view are equally valid, but it has not prevailed in the hard sciences. In the realm of science and medicine, the opposite extreme has dominated: there is only one valid point of view and it does not have to be proven as long as we say there's a consensus.

This consensus-ism runs completely counter to the scientific method. It essentially shuts down inquiry, and therefore discovery, in the fields most infiltrated by it.

For the meme's author to not recognize that his or her own unquestioning faith in establishment experts is a classic example of cognitive dissonance--that's a nice bit of irony, but not a comforting one. If expertise is dying, it's not because of people sitting around googling topics from their couches, it's because the establishment is actively dumbing down the academy by eliminating diversity of thought. And we all suffer, even us laymen.

This is how I usually respond to this line of reasoning, using language suitable for normies.

What if there are actually a huge number of experts who disagree with the “consensus” and the only way the establishment was able to achieve a “consensus” in the first place was to exclude the opinions of those dissenting experts? What if those dissenting experts are being effectively blacklisted from their professions for daring to go against the grain of “consensus”? What if other experts who have concerns about the “consensus” see their colleagues losing their careers for objecting, and decide they cannot afford to speak out? What if it turned out that the dissenting experts were right?

History shows us that dissenting experts have always been treated this way by the establishment. It was an expert who broke with consensus that the earth was the center of the universe, who proved that it wasn’t. Galileo was treated as a heretic and had his career ruined over his discovery. Fortunately for the regular people of the time period, that discovery had no great impact on their daily lives or their health.

If it turns out that our dissenting experts are right, the regular people of today will not be so lucky.

Of course, I know for a fact that this is happening--that today's Galileos are being forced up against a wall, made to choose between truth and ethics or self preservation. But if I come right out and say that, the half waking mind will say "Conspiracy theorist!" and go back to sleep. It's better to lead with questions, historical analogies, mild suggestions to question authority.

"But I've seen the dissenters! They're all crazy!"

This is an objection I've encountered more than once from people clinging to their faith and belief in the scientific "consensus."

Yeah, of course they're all crazy. The crazy ones are the ones they let you see on the news.

Since the beginning, I've personally been very skeptical of the official narratives around the disease, so I've actively sought alternative explanations. My basic instinct has been that for such a new scientific/medical phenomenon, it would be impossible for there to actually be consensus among the experts. But for some reason we've been led to believe that there is a consensus. I knew there must be experts offering dissenting opinions out there. In order to find them, I've had to go out of my way--using alternative video streaming platforms, alternative search engines, and looking at alternative news media. What I've found has been very troubling.

While the mainstream media makes a big show out of discrediting obvious scam artists, mentally ill conspiracy theorists, and doctors with questionable backgrounds, hundreds of sensible dissenting experts are being quietly punished for speaking out with their concerns. They receive threatening letters from their universities and medical regulation bodies. They have their hospital privileges revoked or are fired from university positions for the most absurd infractions, such as asking their colleagues how to treat vaccine injuries that the establishment hasn't yet acknowledged the existence of, or advocating for requiring informed consent of the parents whose children are being vaccinated.

Some of these experts are working on hypotheses that, to my admittedly non-expert thinking, are highly plausible. It's a travesty that the media is not only not giving them any coverage, but seems to be actively blocking people from finding out about them. This is curious, that they would spend so much energy reporting on the obvious quacks, whose absurd claims don't even justify debate, but when they encounter a more intellectually robust opponent to the official narrative, they scrub it away with industrial strength bleach rather than make the effort to disprove it.


The media and government seem very concerned with stopping the spread of misinformation. There must be a lot of misinforamtion that's already been kept out of our newsfeeds. What if only the stupidest of the dissenting opinions on Covid are selected for mainstream media consumption, at the exclusion of rational and sensible dissenting opinions?

Pfizer and Pfriends


Why would the media, government, higher learning institutions, and establishment science and medicine collude in this way to promote this particular narrative?

If they follow the money, it obviously leads straight to Pfizer and Pfriends. This is not controversial, it's just not thought about. If you point it out, they'll have trouble finding objections.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg, but for the sleepy, you have to go slow. Don't present them with too much evidence at once, or you'll crash their mainframe. The Pfizer connection is one that they can relate to. Why, only a few years ago they themselves might have been skeptical or critical of the pharmaceutical industry, which was widely regarded as one of the most corrupt and collusive, dirty profiteering industries in our modern history. Robber barons x1000. We have to try and bring them back to that former state of understanding through our gentle line of questioning.


Thank you for reading!

Check out my novel, Technate 2051, which imagines what life might be like in 30 years if the Great Reset succeeds.


Dystopian fiction isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but if it’s yours, I hope you’ll stick around. The easiest way to do that is to subscribe to my newsletter for free. You’ll get a fresh new Technate 2051 chapter each week (or so) in your inbox, plus regular updates on my novel-ing process, and occasional essays on real-world dystopias.

And if you want to chat, send me a note at starrohara @


Social Links

Subscribe to my Substack
Follow me on Twitter
Add me on MeWe
Follow me on Flote


Great article; it is more and more important to get through to people. And harder.

I try to act naive and say 'dumb' things like it was 2019. e.g. 'It is unusual for a vaccine to be used so quickly....', or 'I remember those FFP2 masks provide no protection from viruses'.
This puts people's minds a bit closer to before they were brainwashed.

Another thing I like to point out about Experts...

Experts are still human. They have been trained to use the skills. That does not mean they are not without bias. It does not mean they may not be swayed by emotion or some other motivator and fail to properly apply those skills without bias in all cases. With that in mind they are not above question. The only thing an expert is truly useful for is indicating that it is MORE PROBABLE that they have the answer in their field of expertise. Being more probable does not make it a certainty. We must still be able to question, challenge, and verify.

As to science. Scientists are scientists WHEN they are following the scientific method. They are not scientists when they are not following the scientific method.

As you accurately pointed out. Consensus is not part of the scientific method.

If a single person thought A was the truth and every other person thought B is the truth.

The consensus would be whatever B stated.

Yet sometimes A is correct. Consensus is meaningless to the scientific method. It actually can slow down and corrupt science.

Anything NEW in science is likely to challenge consensus. If it is new there are also no PEERS to peer review your work. These artificial gatekeeping techniques add stagnation into the practice of science. They corrupt it.

That piece about expertise is actually a fantastic argument against democracy.

It does work as an argument against democracy, but the solution it seems to imply is technocracy, which is just as awful of an idea.

Great read. I'm sharing.

Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!

Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!

Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more

Congratulations @lesliestarrohara! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 2250 replies.
Your next target is to reach 2500 replies.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at

Well said. Thank you for this. Reblogged.