More Content Talk

The year was 2008. I was young, in college, and I had this notion in my head that the world was changing, that humanity's collective work to make the world a more peaceful, inclusive place was finally paying off, and that I was lucky enough to be a part of the generation that brought about huge social change. Back then, I thought the election of Barrack Obama signified a clear shift in the American narrative toward a more liberal period, a time where people who looked like me would be accepted by...well, the people who provide you with a paycheck. We weren't asking for much. We just wanted a place at the table. We never really got that place at the table, and, though I may not always agree with Barrack Obama, it would be silly to blame him for this. He did the best he could with a crappy situation, that being that he was an agent for change in a nation that was directly opposed to change. As soon as Obama realized that he could not pass anything through the senate without pretending to be a Reagan era conservative I knew that any hope we had for real change was over. This realization led me down a very dark path of despair that I will not go into here. It really devastated me to know that this was the result of the protests, and the essays. Another Reagan era conservative, another screw job for people like me. I have come to expect that from America: screw job after screw job. But one thing did not surprise me in 2008, and that was the coexist movement. I saw it coming from a mile away. The Catholic Church's last big attempt to convert the heathen. Don't get me wrong, they didn't lead with that. They were sure to use all the right buzz words: "peace", "acceptance", and the ever so important, yet entirely vague, "tolerance" were preached as if they were in Leviticus. It was the new law of the land. The Catholic Church had given up its oppressive history for coexistence. Everywhere there was rejoicing. Even popular politicians were photographed with the new popular Pope Francis, as if he was their cool uncle who was going to give everyone free candy. Francis enjoyed a huge surge in popularity for saying things like "homosexuals are children of god" and "atheists do not have to go to hell". This was seen as progressive by popular liberals on the alternative and popular news channels. It was a uniform reaction to a bunch of meaningless statements, so I knew back then something was awry. Meanwhile, the Catholic church has continued to hide priests, and protect priests who have committed crimes. They have still failed to release various records that may indicate their priests and nuns in child sex abuse cases. How much could this benevolent, hip new pope actually do to change such an old, and seemingly unchangeable organization? Were we supposed to believe that he could somehow wipe away hundreds of years of tyranny by simply saying "my bad"? America seemed to think so. All of a sudden you could not look at someone's laptop or backpack without seeing a coexist sticker. There were coffee mugs, t-shirts, banners, the whole nine yards. Yep, the Catholic church was making money, and promoting "peace" at the same time. It's funny how people like Pope Francis, who advertised for the catholic church's coexist movement, seem to cry foul when evangelicals get to talking. It almost seems like they're old rivals jockeying for position or something, but the official narrative of American history has told us that is simply out of the question. So why did Pope Francis mislead the gay and black communities into thinking they had a future in the Vatican? Why was everyone telling me this was a liberal pope as he simultaneously was disrupting the hard work that activists did to secure the right to abortion, gay marriage, and racial equality? Why is this pope ritualistically given a pass because he used to hang out with Obama? Is this the "logic" that the "facts" based movement is boasting about? It is. Welcome to the coexist is over party!

Before Rush Limbaugh died, he stated that he had always been a man of  integrity. Integrity indeed. Perhaps he was, if you consider causing  hatred and division a virtuous goal to aspire to. Perhaps other shock  orators are virtuous as well. Hell, everyone seems morally upright these  days. Listening to the buffoonish media, one would have assumed that  Rush had apologized for being a bad boy all those years, the years that  ruined my life, the years that made it nearly impossible for me to get  work, even though I had worked a lot harder than Rush, or any shock news  peon. Perhaps we should thank those who paint us as criminals, and put  obstacles in our way, regardless of how much we suffer. Perhaps we  should forgive and forget, let bygones be bygones, focus on the present,  not the past. Perhaps we should be another species. Perhaps we should  repair our damage psyches and join a mystic cult, forever dreaming of  the mystical mysteries of mysticism. Perhaps we should believe in magic.  Perhaps we should dance in the forest, become one with nature, and  ascend into the heavens. Perhaps we should forget we are human, put on  animal costumes, and scurry away to neverland to forget our troubles  once and for all. Perhaps we should, but we won't. We will be here, in  the real world, and we will suffer through the fruit of Rush's labor.  And so, I am here to bring you the real Rush Limbaugh that the cowards  at the alphabet soup media companies were too afraid to in fear of a  ratings dip. Well, Rush kicked the can. It's over.No more rants about the dangerous blacks. No more sensationalized crap  news about women taking men's jobs. No more outlandish stories about the  president being a Muslim from another country. No more insinuating that  Jewish people have done...whatever he had said they'd done on that  particular day. Yes, Rush Limbaugh's legacy is an eventful one to say  the least. The man undoubtedly cause more hatred and derision in America  than any of the other various shock radio hosts. Rush did not report  the news, he invented it, turning competent media into a horror show of  stereotypes, pseudoscience, and gossip. He sat, perched upon his leather  podium, spewing out hate and stale tobacco smoke, like some kind of  cartoon character from the 1940s. He ruined everything he could. That  was his mission in life, to ruin the lives' of others, and he succeeded  in ways that dictators could only have fantasized about. Yet when this  man, if you can call him that, (I prefer coward) died, the political  nannies came out, wagging their fingers at those who would dare speak  ill of the dead. Well, I have nothing but terrible things to day about  this now dead coward. So what if this idiot is now rotting in the dirt?  How does that effect me in anyway other than knowing some of my tax  dollars went to put him in the dirt? I want my money back by the way. I  feel nothing for this hollow shell of a human other than contempt. Do  you think that because you die that excuses your actions in life? Do you  think that death absolves you somehow? Not in my world.Death is not justice, nor is it peace. The only benefit I get from that  yellow toothed cigar sucker kicking the bucket its that I don't have to  listen to his awful tirades about the poor being lazy drug addicts  anymore. But even that was only a temporary relief, only a facade that perhaps  this trash talking piece of garbage would not influence my life  anymore.But then the morons started talking, "be nice", "be moral",  "take the high road", "don't say anything bad". Well, I will say some bad things, a lot of bad things. When a person has nothing but bad things to say, that is what they get in return.

Do you year for the days of yore? You know, a simpler time when people didn't have to give a damn about each others' feelings; the days when, if one got sick, one simply prayed to whatever god one was allowed to believe in at the time. Ah yes, the days long forgotten, and the days we all talk about. Wasn't that great? Wasn't it fun wandering off to school at 6:00am so that you could play in a creek, and cut a vein open on a rusty nail? That actually happened to one of my mom's brothers by the way, or it may have been a rusty can, either way, not good. He didn't die...somehow, and is still alive today thankfully. But the horror of that story permeates in my mind. My mom talked about her and her other siblings (my mother came from a large family of about 7) wrapping my uncle's cut up in their clothes, and rushing him back home so that their parents could drive him to the hospital. He was apparently gushing blood all the way, and I imagine in great pain, though, with a cut as bad as that, shock tends to set in after a few moments. So, who knows? Perhaps he fainted, and doesn't remember a thing. Isn't that nice? Isn't it quaint? Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that he pulled out okay in the end, and lived happily ever after? Well, it shouldn't. Why? Because he could have died, that's why. And, even though he didn't, what kind of a people allow children to wander off into creeks with rusty nails and cans? I don't even care what your political beliefs are. Where I am from, that is called irresponsible, and life-threatening behavior. Yet, now more than ever, there seems to be this call to return to a simpler time. Can we really get more simple than we already are? We can't control this virus in any way that is effective. Should we really be looking to the days when people dropped dead like flies because of the flu? As a political scientist, I am often amused when I see pictures of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington strewn about someone's twitter account or other social media because I already know what lecture I am going to here. And I quote, "the big bad government has torn the constitution to shreds, and is trying to usurp our freedom with Hollywood, socialism, and atheism. So, we have to go back to a simpler time without clean water, biology or mental health so that we can defeat the devil of communist China cancel culture." Something like that anyway; it all blends together after a year of blathering on about whatever your particular flavor of political gossip is today. It disgust me to see so many seemingly "reasonable" people get sucked up into this obvious lie. Good old days? What on earth have you been smoking? It reminds me of when I hear morons ramble on about the purity of Thomas Jefferson's moral character because he didn't beat his slaves. What a complete load of rubbish. He should have never owned them, and he definitely should have never had sex with a fourteen year old. But we must hold his image sacred because he had some good ideas. Give me a break. I have heard people for years make excuses for the moral failures of their heroes, as if they just didn't understand their actions, and were really dear, sweet, loving people at heart. These claims are biased nonsense, and have no place in real history. It is something you would find on the history channel, a dopey actor portraying a historical figure with intense facial expressions, and heart wrenching monologues. That is not reality. It is a fantasy sold to you by entertainers. Behind the fantasy their is a real history, a deeper, richer, more complex, and vastly more interesting history that can instruct us on our current stat of fairs. But most people do not want to read their history; they want to live it, as if they were the dopey actors portraying the story of the past. As I will demonstrate very clearly in this episode, this yearning for the past is yet another of humanity's ways of rushing itself off to an early grave.

Frederick Douglass was never supposed to be anything in life. He was born into slavery, separated from his family, and sentenced to a term of serving others for the rest of his life, having committed no crime. Though this story is tragic, those of us who have actually read American history know that his story is not rare for this reason alone. Douglass certainly had to deal with the brutality of slavery, but so did many black people, so this alone is not what is impressive about his story. What makes Douglass unique, and still quite the enthralling read even to this day, is that he demanded more from humanity than the simple, "well, that's just the way it is, so deal with it". He rejected the notion of complacency in life, and encouraged others to do the same. He did not believe that slavery was just a matter of brutalizing the body, but of abusing the mind. Douglass "Narratives of the Life of An American Slave" does what most other books of the period fail to do. It argues, and proves, that the slave system was kept alive by creating tiny communities on plantations. It is not Douglass' argument that slavery was a consistent horror show of beatings, as portrayed by European film makers. Indeed, he discusses beatings, and whippings, but he states very clearly in Narratives that it was not the beatings that kept slaves from running off (indeed it was the beatings that drove many of them to escape). So what did keep slaves from revolting for so long? There were far more of them than plantation owners, and they could have overthrown the whole system without the north? Why didn't they? This is a question that has plagued philosophers, who are always trying to complicate things instead of looking for answers. Fortunately for them, they need not question reality, or history for that matter. Douglass' writings tell us very clearly that slaves were paid, though obviously not well, they were given holidays, allowed to socialize with friends, allowed to practice Christianity, sing songs, dance, and all sorts of things that we still do today. After awhile of receiving rewards, and fun of this kind, the slave likely reasoned that this was the best they were ever going to get. After all, they knew nothing of northern life, where blacks were free for the most part. So, slaves did not leave because they believed their condition would not improve. They had no real evidence for this. They were lied to, and they believed the lie, even with the bible in hand, they believed the lies of their masters. This calls into question the moral trajectory of belief. If belief can lead to an enslaved populous, should we really be entertaining such a dangerous notion? Should we coexist with people who believe it is their inherent right to enslave others, and then raise children to believe that slavery is natural? It is their belief after all, and according to American dumbass logic, we have no right to question beliefs. Well, I'm questioning, and I am not going to stop. You do not get to erase history, not on my watch anyway. We must stamp out this notion that beliefs are sacred. They are fantasies that we develop to justify our hatred. If I believe that you are less than me, I will not care when you are suffering. It behooves you not to allow this nonsense to go on any further, and to start really questioning the motives of those who are always telling you to believe without evidence. This is black history month, but black history does not stop in february, nor does it rest when you decide that you no longer want to listen to your new rap album. Our culture is your culture. America was built on the blood, sweat and tears of black suffering, and mental abuse. It is high time that we all faced the fact that slavery can absolutely happen again, and that, if it does, it will not just be about enslaving blacks, but about controlling the political sphere of influence, which was always its real function. Let's have a black history discussion, on MCT.

We have all heard the saying "time flies when you're having fun." And I  am sure the we have all rolled our eyes after hearing it. It is one of  those phrases, like "how are you doing?", that has become almost entirely meaningless. It has also, I think, been seriously called into  question since the pandemic began. People often talk about being bored  under quarantine, and I wholeheartedly believe them. However, I have  heard many of the same people talk about time seemingly speeding up  while the pandemic has taken hold. This seems contrary because many  entertaining films and stories have been made about tumultuous times in  history. It would seem the the untrained observer that something like a  pandemic would be anything but boring, but pandemics are quite  predictable, and predictability leads to boredom. We already know what  is going to happen. People will complain about wearing masks, cry at  some protest, and then get a conservative judge to comply with their  idiocy. It is the same story over and over again, and i has been the  same story since March, 2020. Talk about boring. The days kind of blur  together when you are not interested in what is happening. You wake up  everyday, and everything is the same. There is no variety. The  unexpected becomes predictable. You already know what is going to happen  before you even do anything.All of the news headlines are the same, giving you horror stories about  the danger that is surely to come from bad decisions that will certainly  be made. According to the time flies philosophy we should all be in a  constant state of slow time. Yet the year just flew by for many people.  In the blink of an eye, 2020 was here and gone. This is not to say the  year was not sad, or to trivialize the pain of others. It is a  recognition that we decide how fast or slow time goes by deciding what  we will do with our lives. People always have excuses for why they have  yet to paint that painting, sing that song, read that book, write that  poem, learn that instrument, etc. It almost seems as if people hunt for  excuses. "Well, I can't be an actor," they proclaim, "there is a  conspiracy to keep me out of Hollywood because I don't look the right  way." Okay, maybe. But there are many other ways to be an actor than  going to Hollywood. Hell, you can even be one in your own home these  days with the advent of online entertainment. So, what is the real  reason the person does not pursue their dream career? Obviously, they do not feel valued. They do not feel that they can do  it, not that it is impossible. If it were  impossible then there would  be no actors. But why do they feel that they specifically cannot  accomplish this? It is easy to blame this on the ill will of others, and  that definitely has an effect. I am not minimizing that. However, there  comes a point where we must realize that our enemies are indeed our  enemies, especially if they are unwilling to change. So, we then must  ask ourselves what we can do to make our lives better without the  approval of others. That is to say, how can we be happy in a world that  makes no sense, a world that is absurd? We must first come to grips with  how silly we are. We must realize that the place we want to be is no  better than where we are now. That is not to say that we should settle.  Quite the contrary, we should strive to make our meaning where there is  obviously none provided for us by this useless society. We must realize that there is no master of our fate, no secret puppet  master pulling the strings, that we are alone, and responsible for our  own actions.We must also realize that being alone can be liberating. We can learn more when we are alone. What is so boring about that?

It has become something of a parlor trick to analyze propaganda. Serious  analysis of the battle for hearts and minds has become a hobby for  internet sleuths and gotcha journalists. In a sense, the hunt to  understand and explain propaganda has become propaganda itself. This  idea of brainwashing has heavily influenced the American psyche, leading  to vast conspiracy theories about government and business takeovers  that never come to fruition. This makes it easy to claim that people are  in some way mentally forced to take certain actions. This misses the  point. The reality is that most people have already decided to hate  certain groups before propaganda ever is initiated. This idea that one  person could somehow make a large group of people racist or sexist is  entirely new, and was invented by scam artists like alex jones and bill  cooper, who are themselves propagandists! We can already discount any  serious analysis of propaganda if it is a propagandist who is doing the  analysis, which, with the current state of the internet, is pretty much  all you'll find. These morons wave degrees or certifications about and  state that they are more qualified to analyze propaganda than the  people, mostly political theorists and behaviorists, who are actually  trained to do it. Instead of offering you a fun story or useless archaic  examples of propaganda, which is what you will find youtube for the  most part, I read from the book written on propaganda by Jaques ellul.  Though, largely forgotten, and relegated to of dusty bookshelves,  Ellul's understanding of propaganda transcends the usual "brainwashing"  focused analysis. Ellul instead focuses on political, social and  economic realities that are programmed into the system we live in. He  contests that propaganda begins not with fake news, but with a real  concern in society that the government has failed to address. Leaders  then use propaganda to stoke already volatile tensions that existed  before the propagandist was ever born. In other words, people are not  brainwashed, but presented with solutions that make them feel better  emotionally, not in reality. When a person desires an answer, any  confident individual can provide them with one that sounds right, not  because it is correct, but because they exude confidence. This is brought to you by More Content Chefs, a new series produced by  More Content Please. We feature various forms of arts and entertainment  and food is one of them. The ketogenic diet has manifold benefits,  especially for those suffering from epilepsy. I know this because I have  epilepsy and have now been seizure free for almost a year while on the  keto diet. I make it part of my mission to let people know the diet and  its recipes for free. Spreading epilepsy awareness with one of my  passions is truly amazing and I sincerely appreciate all who watch and  learn from these videos.Please do not stop or alter your medications for  seizures without your doctor's consent. Also, discuss any dietary  changes you may be interested in with you neurologist, as this may  effect the medications you are currently on. Always speak with your  doctor before you listen to me. If you would like to try keto for weight  loss I would be glad to help with tips so please reach out to us.  Remember the more you like and subscribe to our podcasts, videos and  other content the more content we will be able to give you so please  like and subscribe!If you'd like to learn more you can visit our website  or social media pages.

We use the words love and hate rather carelessly. Both of the terms are  used to describe our taste in movies, food and relationships. If we do  not love the cheeseburger, the we hate it. If a celebrity does not  entertain us, they may make our most hated list. If a person does enough  for us they are bestowed the "I love you" title, unless they cease  doing these things of course. It is almost as if we are holding people  hostage, threatening them with approval or disapproval, love or hate, at  every turn. How does one manage to have a loving relationship in a  world so obsessed with hatred? This may seem like a daunting task.  Hatred seems to be the opposite of love. But, as per usual, scientific  studied has called this observation into question. It may very well be  that we never just love or just hate the people in our lives. Indeed,  our affection may as fluid as our sexuality. We all have those days  where we just do not get along with each other. We all know that arguing  and disagreement lead to choas and misunderstanding. Therefore, if  hatred is so detrimental to our existence, it would of course behoove us  to completely avoid situations that lead to argument and disagreement;  at least, this is what self-proclaimed experts have posited. However, we  cannot avoid these "negative" feelings. They pop up, at times seemingly  for no reason. Old arguments and disagreements that are still unsettled  do not just go away.We may lose the exact wording of an argument, or even the subject  matter, but the feeling remains hiding beneath the surface, and,  eventually, turns into yet another argument. Of course if we ever want  to be in relationship, we must ask ourselves how we can be ourselves  fully, while not harming our loved ones. If that is not possible then we  probably should not be together in the first place. We all have our own  reasons for loving, and I would argue that one is no better than the  next. However, it is not worth harming others or ourselves to live up to  a standard of love that has been declared by society. We all have our  own idea of love so I will spend very little time trying to define it.  Hatred, on the other hand, is one of those emotions that Sunday morning  psychologists have deemed "negative". Along with anger, fear and  sadness, hatred has been relegated to what I like to refer to as the  demon emotions; in the old days, and I would argue very much still  today, it was not uncommon to refer to a person who was being  overemotional, whatever the hell that means, as being inhabited by some  sort of evil spirit or humor. The answer, or lack there of as I would  put it, became to extract the evil spirit, thus curing the evil that inhabited it. But how does one extract the supernatural? Torture would seem almost  pointless to inflict upon an eternal being that is destined to burn in  hell. There is, after all, supposedly no greater torture than the wrath  of god. So how did we end up tearing out people's entrails, drowning  them in lakes, and boiling them alive in pots, all practiced during the  holy crusades, to try and exercise demons? But we don't have to stop at  religion. That is not what this is about. We could just as easily  discuss the concept of "negativity", and how we simply view ourselves as  the answer to every question. Why do you call people negative? What are  the guidelines?Am I positive if I dislike the right authors? Am I negative if I criticize the wrong celebrity? How do we weigh such things?Are we just chronic fixers, never satisfied with any outcome? Does there  need to be a fixed moral code or is it malleable? Do we love the ones  we hate? Do we hate the ones we love?

I recorded this episode to address America's history of sexual  repression. In America, sex is a loaded word, and not in a fun way. One  side of our society argues that sex is normal, which it is, while the  more conspiratorial side of our nation believes that sex is some sort of  evil demon to be feared. This revulsion of the human body, and its  properties, has doomed Americans to a very narrow view of sexuality,  which, in various ways, causes guilt, shame, and even physical harm.It is our view that, were it more acceptable for people to express their  sexuality freely, that events like the arrest of an anti-gay politician  in Hungary would never have happened, nor would the vile attacks on  Matthew Shepard, nor a score of other sex shaming related incidents.  Yet, for some reason, we have not yet embraced sex as nothing more than a  harmless pleasure, and have even gone out of our way to invent  conspiracy theories about the act of sex. The idea the masturbation, for  example, is somehow addictive is complete nonsense, yet remains a  popular topic of debate for reasons that only q-anoners can explain  (something about sex demons again).     The hatred of sex in general is a very puritan notion; this idea that  sex will somehow corrupt the body screams of something found in Arthur  Miller. But try saying that any other place than a public school or  college campus, and the response will be a bored sigh at best. America  is undoubtedly going through a period that future generations will refer  to as our dark age, especially when it comes to our biology. We  understand dogs and cats pretty well, but when it comes to humans we  simply don't seem that interested. Why would this sex apathy happen in a  nation that strictly adhered to the idea that sex was evil for over a  couple hundred years? I think the question answers itself.   The American disgust with their own sexuality has led to a kind of cult  like behavior rampant in this nation that is centered on self-hatred,  and a distaste for kindness to others. Compassionate sexuality, the kind  that seeks consent because non-consent would simply not be arousing, is  a sin in America. It is something that only the dirty people do. the  ne'er do wells who gum up the works, the exceptions to the rule. Those  that dare to explore, or, dare I write the word, embrace their full  sexuality, and therefore their compassion, are maligned, and branded as  weak or weird.    This very puritan reaction to all things sexual has left in Americans in  a kind of constant debate over what is and what is not acceptable when  it comes to sex. However, these discussion are rarely well informed, and  often contain appeals to emotion as opposed to hard science. Why is not  acceptable for people to be involved in group sex? Why does this seem  to offend so many people? Is it the spread of disease? If so, then why  not argue for free universal contraception and sex education, as opposed  to having heated debates about moral constructs? What has hundreds of  years of sexual neglect really gotten us as a species?If most of us are miserable in the bedroom, why on earth would we desire  a happy sex life for anyone else? It seems to me like we would revert  to the ways of our ancestors, who wrote our laws, many of which are  still on the books today. It does not seem far fetched to me that  America would destroy the sexual fulfillment of others to preserve its  fledgling theocratic origins. In fact, it is my argument that this is  exactly what is going on with organizations lie NOFAP and MGTOW, which  promote violence against women by branding their right to choice or  contraception as slutty. 

---

Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/morecontentplease/support

Life presents us with many choices. You know that. There is no need for me to give you examples. However, it is my humble opinion that there is one choice that is far more important than the others, that being whether you will be yourself, or be boring. Unfortunately, those are the only two options. I know that you have heard that there are other ways, that there is a happy medium where you can be yourself in a secret hiding place at night, while pretending with your friends and loved ones. However, you and I both know that whole gets old after awhile.

It may be fun to pretend, for a time. It may even bring you great joy. Many entertainers will tell you how happy they are on stage. Yet most entertainers will also tell you that performing is just like any other job; as time passes, the fun fades, fatigue sets in, and you start dreaming about tomorrow. Humans have attention spans, but they are limited. No person enjoys repetition repeatedly, over and over again, not even for a little while.

Can you be yourself around your loved ones? And, if you can at all, how far are you allowed to go? What is acceptable to the people around you? What limitations are they placing on your behavior? Many people claim to be comfortable with their relationships, but many also never examine them. The narrow road to being yourself is paved with revelations. If you decide to go on such a journey, you will have the pleasure of discovering real contentedness with yourself. But this requires a hard nosed resolve to be alone.

The reality is that many people will never accept you completely, and that the vast majority of the self care you will do will be just that. The problem here is that we as humans are adverse to solitude, even when we need it to survive. Obviously we should not be reclusive because that can very easily lead to depression. However, it is not entirely necessary for us to rely so heavily on the approval of others. I would argue that doing so is actually quite damaging to our well-being, and tends to promote cult-like behavior, no matter what the education level of the follower.

Is it possible for us to have healthy relationships and be our complete selves simultaneously or are we doomed to be alone even when we are together? I think that, if we are honest with ourselves, our need for approval is slowing us down. Do we need a whole team cheering us on or can we just do our own thing? Furthermore, what is it that makes people feel the need for tribes? Do groups have benefits for the individual? Perhaps, but there do not seem to be many, and they certainly are not timely. We are taught to take one for the team, but I believe that it is time to take a moment for ourselves?

Who are you? What makes you tick? Why do you dream at night? What effect do you wish to have on the world? There are millions of people ready to tell you the answers. I would like you to find out for yourself.

Censorship is a slippery slope, unless, of course, one has a specific goal when utilizing it. Perhaps the goal could be to create confusion, even division, among those who have been censored. It is difficult to ascertain the meaning behind such things. After all, the last thing major corporations would want is to stop us from criticizing them. These days, the term conspiracy theorist is used a bit lightly. I often times see very good journalists with unique stories branded as conspiracy nuts but couch potato critics everywhere. Sometimes it is difficult to know what is true and what is not true, or what is funny or what is not funny, and, supposedly, the answer to this mild inconvenience is to have people we will never meet decide what we view, hear or even write. Is there any real science behind censorship? Does it actually work? One may point to the fact that the rumored second attack from the DC rioters did not occur as "proof" for censorship working, but what is more likely is that the rioters saw the national guard prowling around with AK-47s. You know, the national guard that was absent the first go around. I am pretty certain that would make most rioters think twice, don't you? 

I am already well aware that you cannot point to a scientific report that proves the effectiveness of censorship because censorship and science are, in fact, at odds with each other. Scientists are, by nature, skeptical of societal norms, which causes them to challenge said norms. If solid evidence is discovered that runs contrary to the political narrative of the moment, it is often censored. We have all heard the stories of the struggles of classical scientists, but do we still experience this censorship of knowledge today? Here is a quote from the article "Science and Censorship" by none other than the National Coalition Against Censorship:

"The benefits to society of robust and unencumbered scientific  research and debate are incalculable, especially considering that  government-sponsored research is often the primary means to developing  sound public policy. While censorship in the fields of art and politics  has traditionally garnered the preponderance of public attention, the  21st Century have brought increased scrutiny of First Amendment concerns  in the area of scientific research.

Nationally, science has grown politicized. The federal government,  motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, has  frequently suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports. This  incursion on the scientific community has impinged on a wide range of  topics and research, including the environment, climate change, sex and health education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These attacks occur on both the state and federal level."

If the experts that we so frequently defer to are openly admitting that our government, who sets the standards for education, is "motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda", how do we know that science we acquire is up to date? No need to blame the schools here at all. Teachers can only teach what they are instructed to teach.  The question here should not be, "how do we prevent people from being influenced by conspiracy theories"? The question worth answering is, "why do people seek knowledge that society cannot offer them?" As you have likely noticed by now, there is not much difference between a false conspiracy belief or a religious belief; the harsh reality is that believers don't have to be crazy, but they can all be censored.