Connect with us

Opinion

The Eternal Quest: What is Truth?

Published

9 minute read

Mankind, from time immemorial, has been a seeker of Truth.

Civilizations from the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, and the Mesopotamians to the modern roman empire have searched their world for Truth.   While earlier civilizations sought simpler Truths in their limited world view, our advanced ‘modern,’ society seeks more complexities using far different tools with the same boundless curiosity.

Before the modern era, men and women looked for truth in different ways.  Young men would set off with the armies and sea traders of their time in search for the answer to the burning desire in their souls, are the stories true?  Is there really a whole world to explore?  Are their great sea monsters as my grandfather told me?

Others, somewhat less adventurous and more academic, looked to the mysteries of alchemy or spiritual quests and tempted God by turning base lead in to Gold, worshiping false idols or seeking solace in the quiet spaces of monasteries and remote faith communities; all with an eye to Truth.  Can gold be made from base metals?  Is God, Allah, or Yahweh found in the wilderness or among men in our world? Can we hear the voice of God? How do we reconcile God in our lives?

Amidst the spread of civilization and the rise of the ages or reason and industrialization and technology, the quest for knowledge was not easily satiated with the greater good not always lining up with Truth but rather diversion and deception with Truth often being a casualty.

Most significantly the rise of the internet and information technologies has led to an increased pace of extremism with the left and right seeing greater division and the perceived requirement that there can be no reason or good discussion betwixt the ends of the spectrum.

We have seen this in far greater concentration since 2001 after the events of 911 with so-called conspiracy theories rising immediately.  Building on the momentum of the discoveries during that time, previous histories for events dating back to the great depression were released through various sources and previous ‘Truths,’ were contradicted and influenced by current global motivations.

If we consider the current Covid19 crisis, our sources of information can be mainstream media like CNN, ABC, NBC or the BBC or Al Jazeera or Fox.  Online, websites like beforeitsnews.com or outofmind.com or web presences of regular news broadcasts can inform readers in many ways.  In Canada, we look to the Rebel, CBC, CTV, or regular web news from browsers.

Our newspapers are no longer the haven of true current affairs.  Due to shrinking subscribership and advertising, there is no longer space to present multiple viewpoints for decision making. The issue of news bias is also a concern in many countries with censorship rising its ugly red pen.

Our social media world is rife with censorship.  YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook now all regularly delete content not in keeping with ‘community’ standards.  In the US election, many news items from both parties are not given equal treatment while in Canada, many anti-corruption and scandal news items are also given less than fair access to the public or have been deleted.

In the US, Q Anon has been teasing readers with more than 1500 entries filled with coded information seemingly educating readers on current affairs filled with details accurate enough to suggest an inside source.

The BIG questions are simple:  Is Covid 19 a hoax?  Is it real?  Has it been created by the mythical illuminati?  Do masks work?  Will a vaccine come in our lifetime?   Who is responsible for the patients care or payments IF the proposed vaccines do not work?  Or is it as dangerous to humanity and the draconian measures imposed are necessary to protect mankind?  Is the total makeover of society required to protect us?  Are lockdowns and economic control the answer to a biological condition?

Closely tied to the pandemic question is that of the politicians who want to see those behind the scenes brought to justice for their parts in various international crimes including Child trafficking, international drug trafficking, influence peddling, population control and other crimes against humanity.

The question of truth remains, and those with left leanings will incline their ears towards leftist ideologies and the rightists towards the right.  Centrists are often criticized for their balanced views and considering both sides of the discussion.

We have witnessed and will continue to witness the great cost to our communities of the divisive nature of the legislation and changing coping strategies suggested by health officials.  Families, church congregations, company work forces, sports team fans and employees and many associations have been shattered by our varying reactions to the conflicting ‘facts.’    We can’t forget that we are now also encouraged to report our friends and neighbours who do not follow the ‘rules.’

The sheer financial cost to economies being locked down, global, regional and local is beyond calculation.  Couple that with the social cost of the monetary turmoil and the resulting mental illness, overdose deaths, divorce rates, suicide, ‘natural’ deaths due to delayed medical treatment and future potential respiratory conditions triggered by improper and un-necessary mask usage and we have financial numbers that are nearly beyond belief.

This brings us back to the original premise.

We, as human beings who live in our communities, political leaders who lead our cities, states, provinces, and countries want one thing.  Mankind, throughout history, all over the world, has searched for ONE thing.

Truth.

Truth about our faith issues.  Truth about our politicians and their place in our world.  Truth about our future-will our children be able to survive?  Truth about our economies and the political policies that affect them.  Truth about everything.

The funny thing is that Truth cannot be relative because while times have changed, Truth would have changed and if that is true than we are probably all wrong and if I am right, you may be wrong and one of us is going to face eternity paying for poor decisions.  Not much hope there.  Therefore, Truth cannot change and moreover, it is not relative, it is absolute. It just IS.  No options.  And for Truth to be consistent for millennia, it cannot be based on circumstances, but rather something or someone who IS eternal and DOES NOT CHANGE.

Those who live their lives based on relative truths waiver like a ship on the ocean.

It has been said that there are no atheists in foxholes. Throughout the world, light is dispelling the darkness.

What is Truth

Just as Pontius Pilate asked Jesus when he stood before him prior to crucifixion, the question is the same and always will be be…

What is Truth?

Answer the question carefully.  Your life depends on it.

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Business

Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan Ramp Up Pressure On Google Parent Company To Deal With ‘Censorship’

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Andi Shae Napier

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan are turning their attention to Google over concerns that the tech giant is censoring users and infringing on Americans’ free speech rights.

Google’s parent company Alphabet, which also owns YouTube, appears to be the GOP’s next Big Tech target. Lawmakers seem to be turning their attention to Alphabet after Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta ended its controversial fact-checking program in favor of a Community Notes system similar to the one used by Elon Musk’s X.

Cruz recently informed reporters of his and fellow senators’ plans to protect free speech. 

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

“Stopping online censorship is a major priority for the Commerce Committee,” Cruz said, as reported by Politico. “And we are going to utilize every point of leverage we have to protect free speech online.”

Following his meeting with Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai last month, Cruz told the outlet, “Big Tech censorship was the single most important topic.”

Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent subpoenas to Alphabet and other tech giants such as RumbleTikTok and Apple in February regarding “compliance with foreign censorship laws, regulations, judicial orders, or other government-initiated efforts” with the intent to discover how foreign governments, or the Biden administration, have limited Americans’ access to free speech.

“Throughout the previous Congress, the Committee expressed concern over YouTube’s censorship of conservatives and political speech,” Jordan wrote in a letter to Pichai in March. “To develop effective legislation, such as the possible enactment of new statutory limits on the executive branch’s ability to work with Big Tech to restrict the circulation of content and deplatform users, the Committee must first understand how and to what extent the executive branch coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech.”

Jordan subpoenaed tech CEOs in 2023 as well, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Tim Cook of Apple and Pichai, among others.

Despite the recent action against the tech giant, the battle stretches back to President Donald Trump’s first administration. Cruz began his investigation of Google in 2019 when he questioned Karan Bhatia, the company’s Vice President for Government Affairs & Public Policy at the time, in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Cruz brought forth a presentation suggesting tech companies, including Google, were straying from free speech and leaning towards censorship.

Even during Congress’ recess, pressure on Google continues to mount as a federal court ruled Thursday that Google’s ad-tech unit violates U.S. antitrust laws and creates an illegal monopoly. This marks the second antitrust ruling against the tech giant as a different court ruled in 2024 that Google abused its dominance of the online search market.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

PRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark

Published on

 

As polls tighten in Canada’s pivotal federal election, a Chinese-language website has published multiple editorials suggesting that a Pierre Poilievre government could threaten Chinese Canadian interests with so-called “anti-China” policy clauses—claiming it could bring “inconvenience to the lives of Chinese people, such as restrictions on the use of social media, reductions in return air tickets, etc.”

During the 2021 federal election, then-Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and MP Kenny Chiu were widely attacked with similar arguments across Chinese-language news and social media. CSIS reporting from 2022, cited exclusively by The Bureau, warned that Chinese-language media in Canada is effectively controlled by Beijing and weaponized during election periods to spread Chinese Communist Party-aligned narratives.

One of the new articles also criticizes Prime Minister Mark Carney’s debate remark that Beijing poses the greatest threat to Canada’s national security—a comment that prompted the Chinese-language editorial to question whether Carney’s statement was “a gimmick to attract attention.”

The articles, published Thursday and Friday by 51.ca, have raised deep concern among some community members. One longtime Chinese Canadian journalist, who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation, told The Bureau they were alarmed by the messaging and suspected the coverage was driven by election-interference motives.

One of the pieces claimed that “the Conservative Party has written anti-China clauses into the party platform,” referencing a prior story that quickly circulated on Chinese-language social media and triggered fearful discussion.

Citing WeChat commentary on the same article, the journalist pointed specifically to a politically connected figure previously associated with CSIS investigations into election interference networks in the Greater Toronto Area—allegedly tied to clandestine funding channels linked to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto.

Sharing a WeChat forum screen-picture, the diaspora journalist noted:

“The writer said, according to the Conservative’s campaign platform, China’s definition is ‘enemy.’ So what is the impact on Chinese Canadians’ daily life? Facing more discrimination? Fewer flights going back to China? How about using social media? If there is a war, what will happen to Chinese Canadians—like Japanese people were sent to the concentration camps or deported?”

The journalist said the messaging is not only inflammatory, but dangerously manipulative—casting the Conservative Party as a threat to the civil rights and safety of Chinese Canadians, while exploiting historical trauma to provoke fear.

The same 51.ca article—while quoting from the Conservative Party’s platform documents—shifts sharply into misleading commentary. It contrasts the party’s current positions with historical discrimination enacted by the Liberal government of the 1920s.

One of the recent 51.ca articles warns that the Conservative Party’s stance “can easily cause ethnic tensions and even exacerbate anti-China sentiment.”

A second article delivers a similar critique of Conservative policy while also taking aim at Prime Minister Mark Carney, who, in last night’s nationally televised debate, stated:

“I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China.”

That comment, consistent with assessments from Canadian intelligence services and allied Five Eyes partners, was immediately seized upon by 51.ca’s editorial board.

“Carney blurted out that China is Canada’s biggest threat. Is this a deep-rooted idea or a gimmick to attract attention? It is not known yet. But what is certain is that when other party leaders are talking about how to deal with the problems facing Canada itself, Carney is talking about China being the enemy. I really don’t know what’s going on in his mind.”

Both 51.ca articles strategically focus their sharpest criticism on the Conservative Party, portraying its platform as existentially dangerous, while the second treats Carney’s one-line debate comment as a moment of rhetorical overreach.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X