The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

HE CENSORSHIP MASER PLAN DECODED (i.e. “Te Adams Report”) Te blueprint or how tech giants covertly silence online speech, and how America can fight back against corporate tech monopolists By Mike Adams, ounder, NaturalNews.com, Censored.news, REAL.video, Counterthink. com, Naturalpedia.com and 300+ more websites, fill-in host or Alex Jones o InoWars.com, peer-reviewed science science paper author, author, radiation radiation protection patent patent holder (“Cesium (“Cesium Eliminator”), mass spec laboratory ounder (CWClabs.com), science book author (“Food Forensics”) Forensics”) and award-winning investigative journalist

Te Censorship Master Plan Decoded

able o Contents Introduction Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 ..........................................................................................................................1 Part One: Te Societal Cost of Censorship and the Denial of the Right to Exist ...................4 Part wo: Te Fight for Reality (censorship motivations and justifications) .........................15 Part Tree: Te Fallacy Fallacy of “Fake “Fake News” News” ..............................................................................24 Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure of News Consumption .................................36 Part Five: echnological and Psychological Methods of Overt and Covert Censorship .........42 Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to echno-yranny .......................................53 About the Author Author ................................................................................................................59 ................................................................................................................59

Tis document is provided under a Creative Commons license and may be cited in whole or in part, with credit to the author and and a link to the source. ADDIIONS ADDIION S AND ERRA ERR AA: Tis document may be updated with additional graphics, g raphics, corrections, links or updates. Te permanent URL or this document in PDF orm is:

http://www.NaturalNews.com/Files/Censorship-Master-Plan-Decoded.pd I


Introduction o date, no one has assembled a comprehensive compendium o the aggressive censorship strategies and mechanisms now being deployed against users being targeted by the tech giants. Tis document aims to serve as a primer “blueprint” to explain both the motivations behind the extreme censorship as well as the technical / mechanical means through which such censorship censorship is carried out. out. Tis document should be required reading or any lawmaker, lawmaker, regulator or judicial decision maker interested in protecting the reedom o speech that has served as a critical pillar in our society or over two t wo centuries. centuries. oday’s attacks on the First Amendment are being carried out by a “triple threat” tag-team o institutions: institutions:

#1) ech giants - Teir role is to carry carr y out the mechanics o censorship, shadow banning, banning, “doubt interruptions” and other techniques described in this report. #2) Establishment media - asked with promoting the lynch mob mentality o hysteria and hatred which is translated into widespread calls cal ls or silencing whatever voices they the y don’t don’t like: CNN’ CNN’ss insistent demand or InoW InoWars to be deplatormed rom Facebook, or example. #3) Tird party act-checkers and moderators - Tese groups, such as the SPLC, Politiact, etc., are given the task o flagging all a ll undesirable political speech (or even speech about natural health, as you’ll see below) as “hate speech,” creating the justification or tech giants to ban or deplatorm deplatorm such accounts without having to accept internal organizational responsibility or discriminating discriminating against selected targeted. Tese three “ronts” “ronts” conspire to attack, deame and deplatorm originators o certain types o speech (such as conservative speech, propro -rump speech, natural health speech, pro-cannabis legalization legal ization speech, etc.). raditionally raditionally,, watchdogs such as the ACLU would strongly 1


speak out against aga inst such egregious violations o civil liberties, yet the ACLU ACLU, being strongly affiliated with the politics o the Lef, has consciously stood by and watched this “ree speech massacre” take place, saying nothing in dissent. While the books are burning, burning, in other words, words, the ACLU ACLU is roasting marshmallows marshmallows by the fire. (And the EFF is looking around or more chocolate bars.) Tus, we are now aced with a kind o perect storm in America—a “ree speech apocalypse”—where lypse”—where all the institutions institutions that once called cal led or protections o the reedom o expression are now actively conspiring to exterminate exterminate it. Tis coordinated attack on ree speech is now taking place in plain view. Te agenda is not hidden, nor is it even debatable that this is taking place. Te goal is the complete abolition o all speech that lef-leaning tech giants wish to eliminate, and these efforts have been deliberately accelerated as the 2018 mid-term elections approach, approach, carrying out what can only be called an extreme extreme example o election intererence and a plot to deraud the United States o America by silencing the voices o those who embody conservative conservative philosophies. What Robert Mueller accused the Russians o doing—interering doing—interering with U.S. U.S. elections—is actually being carried out right now by tech giants, the establishment media and third-party “act-checkers.”

Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the ACLU are all conspiring to defraud the United United States of America by silencing conservative conservative voices, en masse, in the run up to a critical election that may decide the fate of our nation.

Te United States Congress must act. New laws must be passed and enorced that invoke the authority o the ederal government government to prevent dominant online platorms rom engaging in the many orms o overt and covert censorship described herein. o write effective 2


laws that protect ree speech, lawmakers lawmakers must understand the technical mechanics o how censorship is accomplished. Tat’s the point o this document: o describe the mechanics o censorship as well as presenting thoughtul intellectual arguments that that oppose the consolidation o “speech “speech authority” in the hands o power-hungry power-hungry tech giants, many o which are owned and run by individuals whose own politics reflect deeply-ingrained hatred toward America’s ounding principles. I we are to survive as a constitutional constitutional Republic, the protection o online speech must now be pursued with a sense o urgency, or we will soon find ourselves living in a hyper-connected online society societ y where only one “official” opinion is allowed on any given topic... and that single allowable opinion is likely to be rooted in irrationality, alsehoods or popular delusions, such as the absurd idea that a biological man can magically transorm transorm into a woman, then compete against women in proessional sports even while possessing the genetics, musculature and sports perormance o a male athlete. Tis very idea, which is obviously an affront to real women, has been so thoroughly embraced by the political Lef that any who oppose it are are immediately flagged flagge d or “hate “hate speech.” speech.” Read this document in ull. Forward it to your representatives in Washington D.C. Urge lawmakers and our President to act on this now, or we will lose not just our reedom to speak, but our right to meaningully participate in the dominant public space platorms through which social and proessional interactions interactions now take place. Te author of this report, Mike Adams, is available to brief members of Congress or rump administration administration staff staff members with further details and analysis. analysis. Adams is located located near Austin, exas. See further bio details at the end of this report.

3


Part One: Te Societal Cost o Censorship and the Denial o the Right to Exist Censorship by tech giants is an assault on the right to exist in an online-dominat online-dominated ed society societ y Te predominant argument o pro-censorship advocates largely consists o claiming that because Google, Facebook, Facebook, etc., are private corporations, corporations, they can thereore engage in discriminatory censorship o any kind they wish, without restraint or regulatory oversight. Tis argument collapses when seen in the context o the broad recognition that partici pation in dominant dominant online platorms platorms has become essential or personal, personal, social and proessional interactions in the modern world. Just Just as citizens o fify years ago could not meaningully participate in society without phone or electricity electricity service, service, today’s today’s citizens citizens cannot meaningully participate participate in in the the modern modern world without an online presence, expressed through the dominant online communicacommunications platorms such as Facebook, Google, witter and Youube.

Dominant online platforms have become become essential services for meaningful participation in modern society. society.

Tis is urther underscored by the act that an individual’s online presence exerts orceul and lasting influence on their personal and social lie, proessional proessional lie, career opportunities opportunities 4


and reedom o expression, including the reedom to engage in political debate that may influence others in elections. o be shadow banned by Facebook or Youube today is as destructive to an individual’s quality o lie as being surreptitiously cut off rom phone and electricity services in the 1970s, or example, or even denied the right to walk down a public sidewalk and chat chat with neighbors. Facebook is, in essence, the “public square” o modern lie, with other adjunct services such as witter and Youube serving similar social interaction unctions. Yet no reasonable person would argue today that electricity companies, even though they are private corporations, should have to right to cut off electricity rom targeted customers because the company disagrees with their politics. Similarly, Similarly, internet service providers (ISPs) don’t don’t cut off customers who use their services, even when those services are conduits or orms o expression with which the ISP may vehemently disagree. Yet according to the distorted justification o the political Lef in America today, all private companies have the inherent inherent right to reuse essential services to selected customers merely because they disagree with the political views o those customers. By this thinking, banks should reuse to lend money to rump supporters. Housing builders should reuse to sell homes to conservatives. Gasoline stations should carry signs that read, “Conservatives not allowed to buy gas.” Even Even iPhone retailers, we’re we’re told, should reuse to sell iPhones to customers who are rump supporters, because they might use those iPhones to post prorump comments that “offend” those tho se who oppose rump. Tere was a time in America where where one specific group o people was told to sit at the back o the bus. Certain caes were reserved or “whites only,” and people were judged and punished based on the color o their skin. Online censorship by tech giants now judges people based on the color o their thoughts, and conservatives, rump supporters and advocates o natural health content (see below) are overtly told, “We don’t serve your kind here,” an obvious throwback to the era o discrimination and intolerance that Americans have roundly rejected. (Amazingly, this overt discrimination is being carried out by the very people who proclaim themselve themselvess to be “tolerant” “tolerant” and “inclusive. “inclusive.”) ”)

5


In a society that has roundly rejected the idea that private businesses can discriminate discriminate against people based on the color of of their skin, established media giants are openly demanding that private businesses now discriminate against people based on the color of their ideas. ideas.

Because o the online nature nature o modern online, the censorship o individuals on the dominant online platorms platorms o open expression is an attack on their very right to participate in society. No modern modern person can meaningully meaning ully participate in modern social and proessional interactions without an online presence on one or more social media giants. Tey have become “essential “essential services” ser vices” or modern lie, making them just as critical to modern survival as electricity, housing or phone service. Many on the political politica l Lef attempt to conflate these thes e issues by citing the recent re cent U.S. U.S. Supreme Court decision which concluded that a Christian baker in Colorado could not be com pelled by the state to engage in artistic expression (decorating (decorating a cake) that violated his private religious relig ious convictions. convictions. According to Lefists who are increasingly devoid o logic and reason, this proves that private corporations can ban speech they don’t like. Yet the Christian baker (Jack Phillips) is not the Google o cake baking in the world and clearly does not control 90% o the cake decorating business in America. Gay customers were ree to rather easily find a vast assortment o other cake shops that would gladly decorate the cake, and they did not need to violate someone’s religious belies in order to achieve that goal. Finally, Jack Phillips’ cake shop is not an essential public orum or modern society, quite obviously, obviously, and his reusal to engage in artistic expression against his wishes in no way harmed the gay customers beyond the mere inconvenience o walking down the street to another gay-riendly cake shop and engaging engag ing in a business transaction transaction there.

6


Te central deception o tech giants Te tech giants now discriminating against individuals based on the color o their ideas— companies like Google, Facebook, Youube and witter—have all pursued a central deception that has only now been exposed. Tat deception consists o these companies launching under the alse pretense o being “open platorms” that welcomed ree speech rom nearly anyone. None o these platorms launched with an honest warning that stated, or example, “Warning to conservatives: Your kind aren’t welcomed here.” Because o this central deception, platorms like Facebook rapidly expanded as indi viduals who had channels c hannels there promoted prom oted the Facebook Facebo ok platorm p latorm to their own riends, ri ends, amily members and proessional contacts. Tis allowed Facebook, witter, Youube, etc., to rapidly expand and become the dominant platorms o online expression and social interaction. Once their dominant market position was achieved, they then started banning individuals based on the content o their ideas, deeply violating the original promise and pretense o the online service. ser vice. In other words, only afer conservatives helped Facebook become the dominant social media platorm did Facebook cut them off rom participating in that very platorm.

Facebook baited users for over over a decade, exploited those users to build a dominant global platform, then cut off the speech of certain certain selected users whose speech it didn’t didn’t like.

In this way, way, Facebook exploited the good will o its authentic users, then violated its social contract and business ethics, transorming its once-open platorm into a discriminatory

7


echo chamber policed by intolerant, small-minded Lefists who have repeatedly demonstrated zero tolerance toward speech that violates their own limited worldview. Facebook, in essence, baited users users or over a decade, exploited those users to build a massive global platorm that became the de acto standard or social media interaction, then cut off the speech o certain selected users whose speech it didn’t like. like. Tis means the very premise o Facebook has been a raud rom day one. I Facebook Facebook had launched its platorm with its honest agenda: agenda : “Conservatives, Christians Christians and straight white males are not welcomed here,” it never would have grown to become the dominant social media platorm it has since achieved. Te market dominance o Facebook, Facebook, in other words, was entirely dependent on executing a “central deception” about its longterm agenda. Stated another way, the market success o today’s tech giants gi ants could never have been achieved achieve d i they had been honest about their true internal goals o discrimination and censorship. All o today’s dominant dominant tech giants g iants were built on raud and deception.

Online censorship is de acto denial o the right to exist in an interconnected world o resolve the selective corporate censorship censor ship that targets political pol itical oes o lef-wing America, lawmakers and internet participants must embrace the understanding that denial o the right to participate in the dominant online platorms or debate and expression is, in essence, an attack on the undamental human right to exist in—and participate in—our modern tech-driven society. I there were a broad marketplace o equally competing online services and gatekeepers with roughly equal market market share, each representing representing differen d ifferentt viewpoints or “clusters” “clusters” o political thought, users would be ree to choose, or example, the “pro- “pro-rump” rump” version o Facebook, Google, Youube, witter, etc. But no such alternatives exist at anywhere close

8


to even 25% market share. Tese dominant internet gatekeepers enjoy market share dominance o 80% or better, in their respective categories, meaning that both content content creators and content consumers have no reasonable alternative destinations rom which to choose. Furthermore, all o today’s dominant tech giants lied about their policies rom the very start, pretending to exist as open platorms welcoming all orms o legal speech. Yet afer they achieved dominant market positions, aided by users promoting their channels on those platorms, they selectively began censoring and deplatorming conservative speech, casting aside the very people they once promised would be provided a platorm or reedom o expression. Trough this deception, the dominant internet internet gatekeepers have become the de acto pro viders o essential inrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their personal and proessional lives. o deny individuals their right to exist in modern society—by shadow banning, deplatorming or artificially throttling their online expression—is to violate an individual’ individual’ss pursuit o lie, liberty and happiness. happiness. It It is to deny their their very right to exist in modern society.

9


Dominant online platforms have become become the de facto providers of essential infrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their personal and professional lives. lives. To To maliciously censor those individuals due to the color of their speech is to deny them the right to meaningfully meaningfully participate in modern society. society.

Te political Lef applauds the stripping away o the First Amendment rights o their political opponent opponents, s, even while demandin demandingg such rights be protected or themselves Tat the political Lef in America today sees nothing wrong with the selective termination termination o the online existence o targeted political opponents is just as disturbing as the action itsel, or it demonstrates the shocking lack o airness or tolerance now routinely demondemonstrated by lef-leaning individuals who themselves benefit rom the very channels o expression they seek to deny to others. Te overriding internal justification justification or such an egregious—even malicious—justification malicious—justification is the belie that the only people who should be allowed to participate in modern society are those whom obediently agree with the ever-expanding list o lef-wing “truisms,” many o which deny the most basic laws o biological and scientific reality (such as the now-common belie that inants are born as genderles g enderlesss beings who are arbitrarily “assigned” “assigned” gender at birth, a belie that grossly contradicts biological and scientific reality). In essence, Goog G oogle, le, Facebook, Faceboo k, You You ube, CNN, CN N, the Washing Washington ton Post and others o thers are asserta sserting one o the most dangerous and absurd ideas in Unites Unites States history: history : Tat i you do not wholeheartedly agree a gree with the increasingly radical “truths” “truths” o lef-wing society, you shall shal l 10


be denied the right to exist altogether altog ether in modern society. society. Such positions have been openly argued in op-eds published in the New York imes, or example, where Bryan W. Van Norden, a proessor o philosophy at Wuhan University in China, argued that no person should be allowed al lowed to speak in the online world unless they are first “properly “properly educated” in liberal ideology ideolog y (https://www ( https://www.newstarget.com/2018-0 .newstarget.com/2018-06-27-n 6-27-nyt-op-e yt-op-ed-calls-or-the-comd-calls-or-the-com plete-silencing-o-all-conservatives-orever.h plete-silencing-o-all-conservatives-oreve r.html). tml). What is his definition o “properly “properly educated?” For starters, he is a Chinese communist communist who believes in the supremacy supremacy o the state state and the the permanent permanent subservience o citizens. We We need not explore urther, since his very nationality reflects an abusive, anti-humanitarian authoritative authoritative regime that nullifies any legitimacy o his argumen arg ument. t.

De acto  acto deamation deamation Because o the necessity o participation in the online world in order to pursue lie, liberty and happiness in a tech-driven society, the censorship o an individual or organization by internet internet gatekeepers is a de acto act o deamation against that individual or organization. org anization. Having your voice silenced s ilenced by You You ube, or example, announces to the world that you must be an unscrupulous person o some kind; perhaps someone who violates intellectual property laws or who engages in unscrupulous spam. In truth, Youube, Facebook and other internet gatekeepers have banned and shadow banned organizations or reasons rooted entirely in the color o their speech. It isn’t just political speech that’s targeted, either; it’s also speech about natural health and disease prevention. Yet the perception among other members o the online community is that you have been punished or some egregious violation o ethics or rules, even when your your only “sin” “sin” might have been to innocently innocently post educational content the tech giants wish to suppress rom public view. Such suppression, by the way, way, need not have anything to do with political politi cal leanings. leaning s. My own Youube channel (“TeHealthRanger”) was completely shut off, without any warnings or strikes, strikes, ollowing my posting o news report video documenting documenting the true story o a woman who overcame overcame stage-4 cancer cancer by using CBD oil. Tat Tat 43-second video, i you wish to review it, has since been posted on a private account account at Vimeo: Vimeo : https://vimeo.com/265601209 https://vimeo.com/265601209

11


Keep in mind that these th ese actions were taken during the ramp-up ramp -up toward the FDA’s approval o the first CBD-based prescription medication in America, a “drug” named “Epidiolex.” “Epidiolex.” Te drug consists entirely o CBD (cannabidiol), the very same molecule ound in CBD oil and hemp extracts. (https://www.naturalnews.com/ (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-2 2018-06-26-da-finally-app 6-da-finally-approvesrovesusa-first-medicine-derived-rom usa-first-medicine-derived-rom-mariju -marijuana.html) ana.html) (It is an irreutable irreutable scientific principle, by the way, that molecules are identical regardless reg ardless o their source. A CBD molecule synthesized by a hemp plant is identical in structure, unction and all chemical properties to a CBD molecule synthesized in a laboratory. For the FDA or an online platorm to state that CBD in a drug dr ug orm is therapeutic medicine but CBD rom a plant is quackery or hokum is to deny the very existence o molecular science and the laws o cause o effect. Molecules don’t know how they came to be. Teir origins do not influence their chemical behavior.) Tus, Youube is deliberately banning users and entire accounts or discussing the thera peutic effects o a plant-derived plant-derived molecule; the same molecule the FDA FDA has just just recognized as a therapeutic “drug” when sold with a specific brand name. (Epidiolex has no other active ingredients beyond CBD.) Such actions smack o Big Pharma protectionism and lend themselves to urther investigations o potential collusion and racketeering among Google, Facebook, Facebook, drug companies and the FDA.

Facebook has begun to deplatorm promine prominent nt natural natural health chann channels els Facebook’s baseless censorship o natural health-related accounts experienced a recent uptick when Facebook banned dozens o health-oriented accounts reaching an estimated 40 million ollowers. As reported by Phillip Schneider at Natural Blaze (https://www. naturalblaze.com/2018/07/acebook-purges-over-80-accounts-sweeping-attack-alternative-media.html), the Facebook purge o natural health websites included: Collectively Conscious (915K ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

12


Healthy Food House (3.4M ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 Natural Cures Not Medicine (2.3M ollowers) – Deleted on June 11th, 2018 Health Awareness (2.5M ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 I Want to Be 100% Organic (700K ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 Organic Health (230K ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 Natural Cures From Food (120K ollowers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 Conscious Lie News (1.1M ollower) – Deleted on June 5th, 2018 ... and dozens more. It is possible that some o these accounts may have been restored, but the act that they were banned in the first place demonstrates the important point here.

13


Summary o Part One: • Because society has shifed away rom communications in the physical world (U (U.S. .S. Postal Postal Service mail, billboards, etc.) and moved almost entirely to electronic communications communications and online posting, the very existence o a business, organization or even a personal reputation depends strongly on their ability to participate in dominant online platorms without being subjected to malicious, selective censorship or shadow banning. • Censorship is the online equivalent equivalent o being personally personally executed; executed; denied the right to exist or participate in an online-connected society. • Te banning o online accounts can destroy an entire business (and it has, provably, in many examples). It can destroy reputations. Most importantly, rom the point o view o the lef-leaning tech giants, banning targeted accounts can also strongly influence uture elections by silencing the speech o those whom Facebook and Google do not want to have have a voice. voice. • Te Lefists who run the dominant online platorms demand First First Amendment protections or themselves while demanding such protections be denied to their political opponents. Tey are applauding the censorship now taking place, and they are calling or such efforts to be accelerated.

14


Part wo: Te Fight or Realit Realityy (censorship motivations and justi justificat fication ions) s) Why achieving achieving censorsh censorship ip is important important to the the centralized media establishment Te purpose o controlled news is to influence and engineer the narratives that orm the belies and even the “abric o reality” or news consumers. One o the reasons corrupt government government universally exerts dominance over its own national media is because whoever controls the news controls “reality.” “reality.” Tat reality realit y is shaped, twisted and sometimes abricated entirely rom scratch by controlled media outlets which universally declare themselves to be the sole arbiters o truth in any given society. Losing control o the narrative means losing control over society. Since the rise o the internet—a disruptive new structure o connectivity that achieved mass decentralization o inormation—the controlled news monopolies have lost their position o dominant control over the narratives narratives o society. Tis means they no longer command absolute authority over the “narrative” interpretation o real-world events, so their ability to distort d istort or misrepresent misrepresent those events or their own political control is rapidly eroding. Tis was all underscored with the victory o Donald rump in the 2016 election—an outcome that could never have occurred without independent, decentralized media achieving prominent prominent influence on the ‘net.

15


Maintaining monopoly control over over cultural narratives is crucial for commanding commanding primary influence over the worldview held by news consumers, whose beliefs, opinions and “realities” are largely shaped by the news to which they are subjected.

Censorship is the primary weapon being invoked by media monopolists to destroy their competition and regain an authoritative monopoly over the concept known as “news” (which is, technically, a series o scripted narratives authored to achieve specific psychological goals, not anything resembling an intellectually honest representation o relevant events in the real world). o accomplish this censorship, both media monopolists (i.e. CNN, WashPost, etc.) and tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) pursue a wide assortment o malicious techniques to deplatorm, deplatorm, shadow ban, smear, smear, disconnect or otherwise down-rank down-rank selected independent independent media publishers that threaten threaten their news dominance. Many Many o these methods are pursued covertly, covertly, and they are all pursued with virtually zero regulatory oversight or restriction. Tis report outlines those tactics and mechanisms, including both technical and psychological censorship weapons now deployed by Google, Facebook, Youube, CNN, the New York imes and others.

What is “news “news?” ?” o ully ul ly understand the censorship strategies leveled against ag ainst independent news publishers by the news establishment, we must first understand the definition o “news.” Te alse assertion o establishment news—the public ront—claims that news is an accurate, unbiased reporting o real-world events which are relevant to the lives o news

16


consumers. consumers. According to establishment establishment news propagandists, they never insert themselves into the news, and they don’t manipulate the news. Tey merely report “acts” without any bias whatsoever, and they claim to have no hidden agendas or ulterior motives whatsoever. whatsoever. In reality, “news” “news” is the primary conduit through which narratives narratives / stories are implanted into the consciousness o news consumers. Tese stories shape the way people think, talk and behave in society. Tey even shape the way people vote, revealing the real priority o the lef-leaning news establishment. Te label o “news” is simply the cover story or what might be more accurately called a “national suggestion / influence campaign” which deliberately works to influence public opinion, distort the perception o real-world events, manipulate the minds o viewers and achieve hidden political goals such as promoting transgenderism, banning the Second Amendment or abolishing America’s border security (as current event examples).

Because the very premise of “news” claimed by the media establishment is fraudulent, the idea that they magically possess a divine monopoly on “truth” is absurd. Because the very premise o “news” as reported by the establishment media today (CNN, WashPos WashPost, t, etc.) is raudulent, the idea that these very same organizations have a magical, divine monopoly on “truth” is intellectually null and void. Simply put, nearly everything broadcast in America today under the banner o establishment “news” is better described as propaganda with a hidden purpose. For example, during the 2016 campaign, establishment news sources widely reported on distorted political polls which claimed to show that Hillary Clinton would easily win the election. By reporting on the manipulated polls (which were later shown to deliberately over-sample over-sample Democrats by enormous margins), the “news” media hoped to create the alse impression that practically everyone in America was voting or Hillary Clinton and that rump had no chance whatsoever to win. 17


Under the guise o “news,” the real purpose o this psychological campaign was to deflate rump supporters and dissuade them rom wasting their time “voting or a candidate who was doomed to lose anyway. anyway.” Tis is just one example among thousands o how the socalled “news” media is actually a social manipulation manipulation and propaganda platorm.

Irreutable truths o news gathering and reporting In attacking the independent media, centralized news monopolists pretend that the ollowing irreutable irreutable truths about news gathering and reporting do not exist: exist :

1) All news institutions make mistakes rom time to time Because news is gathered and reported by human beings who are not immune to mistakes, all news institutions will make mistakes rom time to time. Tis is universally acknowledged across all media, yet the controlled media monopolists selectively insist that independent media may not ever make a single error, or they will be orever accused o publishing “ake “ake news.” news.”

2) All news institutions make editorial decisions that are filtered through human psychology and are thereore thereore biased at their their moment o origin Because news publishing decisions are filtered through human psychology, they are inherently biased. Tere is no such thing as a human being who has not experienced the world rom their own sel-absorbed point o view. view. Tis speaks to the root philosophical question o, “What is reality?” In truth, no human being has a monopoly on reality . All humans, humans, including those in the monopoly media establishment, carry distortions in their worldview. Tus, even i those individuals attempt a perect record o unbiased, accurate news reporting, they will inad vertently vertently make editorial decisions that that are filtered filtered through their own own distorted worldview

18


(including decisions o stories to avoid covering covering , not just editorial angles on stories that are being covered).

Leftists assign to themselves the imaginary imaginary quality that pretends they alone are able to see the world with God-like clarity, clarity, absent any distortions or opinions whatsoever. whatsoever. In pretending to be God, they reveal themselves to be fools.

Te assertion by CNN that their news editors have superhuman abilities to eliminate all bias and view the entire world with God-like accuracy is as absurd as Peter Strzok testiying beore Congress that he never allowed his “F##k rump” attitude to creep into his official duties at the FBI. Tis imaginary quality that Lefists ascribe solely to themselves—that they alone see the world with God-like clarity and truth—is the height o sel-delusion and arrogance. Yet it has become the deault position o news monopolists, and it orms the basis or their accusations that others are engaged in “ake news” while they, themselves, possess the divine divine right to determine determine “real “real news.” news.” Tis sel-delusion by media monopolists is extremely dangerous to society. It is part o what makes CNN the “enemy o America,” as President rump has accurately stated. When an institution believes it is not merely above the law but also above all judgment because because it defines reality, that institution institution has plunged down the path o dogmatic sel-denial that can only lead to destructive destructive outcomes or all those involved. Never orget that the central assertion o media monopolists is that independent media is incapable o being as “authoritative” as they are, because they alone possess the unique, divine, superhuman power o omniscience, yet they remain utterly incapable o explaining how they were able to achieve such powers or why those powers repeatedly ail as demonstrated by their repeated news errors and corrections.

19


Does a reporter magically gain omniscience immediately upon being added to the CNN payroll? Te idea is, o course, course, absurd. absurd. Yet Yet this is precisely what CNN asserts it is somehow somehow able to achieve. Tis assertion, o course, must be made with the extreme intellectual dishonesty that comes rom knowing that CNN itsel makes repeated, repeated, egregious egreg ious errors in its own reporting. Occasionally, it even e ven corrects such errors. In essence, essence, media monopolists claim they are gods who possess the divine right to interpret reality or the masses. Tis claim smacks o journo-cultism, as it is no different rom the delusions o the high priests o ancient Maya or Aztec cultures, who also proclaimed that only a select class o divinely-ordained individuals could speak to God and interpret interpret reality or the masses. In many cases, they then kidnapped children, stabbed them in the heart and threw them down the stone stairs o elaborate pyramids in a visually stunning “sacrifice” that demanded absolute obedience and conormity among the stunned masses. oday, CNN essentially demands the same power and obedience, but instead o sacrificing just a ew children, anti-truth news organizations like CNN and the anti-America Washington Post are willing to sacrifice our entire nation in their quest or absolute power and universal obedience among the masses. Te very abric o our society is now being deliberately sacrificed by media and tech monopolists in their desperate, destructive destructive quest to regain narrative control at any cost.

3) A more legitimate definition o “ake news” should be rooted in the principle o the intention o the people producing their news I a news institution intends to produce accurate news, but makes a mistake and accidentally publishes news with an error, is that “ake news?” O course not: Tat’s legitimate journalism with with an occasional error error.. When such such errors errors are committed committed by established established news monopolists, those errors are universally considered to be innocent innocent and excusable, because they are eventually (but not always) corrected. Yet when such errors are made by independent media outlets, and then corrected, such organizations are orever smeared by the news monopolists with labels o “ake news,”

20


repeatedly reerring to the original error as a prime example o the akery o the news organization.

News monopolists assert that they alone possess a divine right to commit an unlimited number of factual errors, even while claiming that a single error found in the independent media proves them to forever engaged in “fake news.”

Tis double standard is, o course, unair by design. In essence, established news monopolists believe that they alone have a divine right to make an unlimited number o errors (usually on the ront page) and then correct them later later (in small print on page five), while they simultaneously believe that error corrections issued by independent news organizations should never be recognized at all. Te classic example o this gross double standard is the media’s incessant accusation against Alex Jones o InoWars, claiming that he stated no one died at Sandy Hook. While early reporting by Jones could have been interpreted by reasonable people as inerring inerring that conclusion, Jones has since repeatedly and wholly corrected the record on that ront and has publicly offered offered to meet with the parents parents o the the children children who were killed in order to apoloapologize to them in person. p erson. o o the knowledge o this author, there is not a single news monopolist organization that has reported Jones’ apology nor his offer to meet with the parents and apologize to them in person. Not surprisingly, the primary attack on Jones’ reputation continues continues to consist o accusations that that he claimed cla imed no children died at Sandy Hook, even though he has repeatedly and thoroughly retracted any such claim. Accepting Accepting the corrections o independent news organizations, o course, would eliminate the “ake news” narrative that CNN uses as a weapon to call or the outright banning o InoW InoWars. Te assertion asser tion is that InoW InoWars must never be allowed allowe d to correct corre ct any news ne ws report, repor t, but that CNN, WashPost, WashPost, NY NY  and other outlets are universally universal ly allowed allowe d to publish stories storie s 21


containing serious actual errors, even i they never bother to prominently correct them at all. For example, where is the Washington Post apology to President rump or repeatedly and alsely accusing him o conspiring with the Russians to steal the election? CNN, as another example, never reports that the Washington Post is ake news, even though WashPost has been repeatedly caught publishing stories containing documented, serious actual errors rooted in sloppy journalism and an utter disregard or any serious act-checking. Te Washington Post, or example, had to oreit a Pulitzer Prize afer being caught utterly abricating the entire article series which earned the prize in the first place (https://www.naturalnews.com/056196_Washington_Post_ake_news_ Pulitzer_Prize.html). A short list l ist o Washington Washington Post news akery a kery can be ound at: https://www.naturalnews.com/049967_Washington_Post_ake_journalism_media_ propaganda.html A ar more detailed list o documented documented media lies, propaganda and deliberate ake news has been published by independent independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson. See all a ll 55 mistakes, most o which have never been retracted retracted or corrected, at this link: l ink: https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/0 https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/07/11/507/11/50-media-mistakes-in media-mistakes-in-the-trum -the-trump-era-the-dep-era-the-definitive-list Notably, Notably, the very organizations who claim the independent independent media is engaged in “ake news” are, themselves, the worst offenders who traffic in such deceptions. CNN and WashPost, or example, deliberately distort reporting on events, abricate ake “anonymous sources,” selectively bury news stories they don’t want the public to see, and engage in a long list o other dishonest, deceptive activities that clearly qualiy their organizations as being engaged in ake news. CNN, or example, repeatedly akes a kes the locations o reporters, using green g reen screen chroma key background replacements replacements that mislead viewers or situating two reporters on the opposite sides o a parking lot while pretending they are hundreds or thousands o miles

22


apart. (https://www.inowa (https://www.inowars.com/cnn-ancho rs.com/cnn-anchors-prete rs-pretend-theyre-h nd-theyre-having-a-satellite-interaving-a-satellite-inter view-even-though-theyre-in-t view-even-though-theyre-in-the-same-park he-same-parking-lot) ing-lot) I Facebook Facebook were to ban any organizations or repeatedly engag ing in ake news, CNN and the Washington Post would, by any reasonable definition, be at the very top o that list. Similarly, i Google News abided by any realistic standards o journalistic integrity, both CNN and the Washington Post would have to be permanently banned.

Summary o Part wo • Control Control o public narrative narrativess is viewed viewed by media monopolists as critical critical or controlling the masses. • “News” “News” is the the label used by media monopolists who pretend pretend to to be engaged in a public public service when they are actually engaged in public indoctrination and deceptive influence campaigns. • All news organizations organizations commit commit errors. errors. Media monopolists monopolists pretend pretend that that their errors don’t don’t count. • Establishment Establishment media operatives operatives pretend pretend they possess a divine, god-like ability to discern discern reality without bias, and they claim that they alone have access to this ability.

23


Part Tree: Te Fallacy o “Fake News” Te allacy o “real” news vs. ake news Te push or the outright banning o so-called “ake news” is rooted in the logical allacy that only one particular institution institution or group o organizations org anizations has a special, divine monopoly on acts. Tis argument is equivalent to the pre-Magna Carta construct that Kings derived their power rom God, and thus Kings had a divine right to order peasants to do their bidding. Te King was always presumed to be right, the belie held, because his inormation was divinely touched and thereore thereore defined what what was right vs. wrong. oday, establishment news institutions claim a similar “divine right” to be the sole arbiters o truth vs. fiction. Tis claim is, o course, utterly absurd, as those very institutions are largely devoted to abricating their own news, twisting real-world events, deliberately misleading viewers on relevant topics, blacklisting news stories they don’t want the public to see and otherwise pursuing deceptive and manipulative narratives that are rightly described as the “weaponization” o news or the purpose o thrusting ideas into the minds o the masses so that individuals might make decisions opposed to their own sel interest. interest.

The key goal of media monopolists is to thrust ideas into the minds of news consumers that encourage them to take actions which w hich contradict their own self-interest.

In other words, the real purpose o the centrally-controlled news establishment is to prevent citizens citizens rom orming their own own ree conclusions conclusions and acting on on those conclusions conclusions 24


with intelligence and rationality. rationality. When independent independent media sources encourage individual sel-aware thinking and skepticism about the establishment interpretation o real-world events, those media sources must be vigorously attacked, smeared and suppress by the establishment tablishment in order to eliminate competing narratives narratives that might mig ht cause news consumers to “snap out” o their “news hypnosis,” so to speak. Tis underscores the power power o a single sing le question, such as a child asking, a sking, “ Why is the Emperor naked?” (A reerence to the Emperor Has No Clothes able.) Because a single question rom a non-conorming non-conorming,, non-hypnotized independent independent source can disrupt d isrupt the mass influence engineering o conormist crowds, the highest priority o establishment news monopolists must be to silence all opposing voices so that they dare not utter a single question which might challenge the engineered engineered abrications abrications o the establishment. establishment.

The highest priority of news monopolists is to silence independent, opposing voices that encourage individuals to “snap out” of their numbed, passive acquiescence to mainstream mainstream news narratives.

Simple questions such as, “Why has the U.S. government never released video ootage o a commercial jetliner crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11?” tend to awaken people rom their numbed news slumber. Such opening questions may also lead to additional uncomortable questions that the media absolutely does not want to have to process, such as, “How did the third building crumble to the ground on 9/11 when it wasn’t struck by any airplane at all?” (Tis question is chosen here precisely because it sets off hysterical alarm bells across the controlled monopolist media which has long tried to bury the very existence o that third building rom the minds o the public.)

25


Continued compliance to alse mainstream news narratives requires ongoing, repeated indoctrination and inormation dominance by propagandists In essence, censorship o the independent media is a necessary component o the continuous (but ragile) indoctrination o the news consuming public. Just as a stage hypnotist knows that continued compliance with the programmed suggestions requires a supportive, non-conrontational environment which accepts the bizarre actions o the hypnosis subject as “normal,” news monopolists also understand that the success o their own ake news narratives cannot be achieved i there is even a single interruptive voice that pesters the hypnotized masses with provocative questions. In the realm o hypnosis and NLP, this is called a “pattern interrupt,” and in the world o independent independent media, media , Alex Jones is the key “interruptor” “interruptor” due to both the provocative provocative nature o his content as well as a s his aggressive a ggressive delivery style. st yle. It is precisely this kind o combination o content and delivery that can “snap” people out o a mental slumber. Tis is exactly why Alex Jones is the No. 1 target o the news monopolists who depend on zero interruptions interruptions or the continued success o their disinormation narratives which are packaged as “news.”

Alex Jones is targeted under the accusation accusation of “fake news,” but the real reason he’s he’s attacked is because he interrupts the continuous indoctrination efforts of globalist-run globalist-run media outlets.

Reiterated, it takes constant repetition o disinormation to lull news consumers into a news trance, but it takes just one interrupter interrupter to break the spell and jolt people back to their 26


senses. Alex Jones is the mental “jolt” o modern news, which is exactly why he is directly targeted by the news establishment or immediate termination. Te justification or targeting Jones is the claim that he engages in “ake news,” but the real reason or targeting Jones is because he shatters the near-hypnotic near-hypnotic influence o media monopolists, causing news consumers to question their reality realit y.

How media monopolists transorm a lie into a new “truth” “Fake “Fake news” accusations o the established media monopolists are ofen supported by citing other established media monopolists. Tis circular reasoning asserts that because be cause the NY, or example, is an “authoritativ “authoritative” e” source, anything appearing in the NY NY  is automatically automatically true. Even i it is actually in error, this new “truth” is then cited by the Washington Post or CNN in order to spread the alsehood under the cover o “authoritative” news (which is also, o o  course, put into the highest hig hest ranking positions po sitions by Googl Go ogle, e, You You ube, Facebook, Facebook , etc.). From there, second-tier propaganda propa ganda organizations org anizations such as a s BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed, Politico Politi co or Salon craf their own propaganda stories, citing NY, WashPost and CNN as “authoritative” sources. Te lie is urther “act-checked” into existence by Snopes, Politiact or other scurrilous “act-checking” “act-checking” organizations, nearly all o which are entirely dominated by lef-wing lef-wing bias and technically make a mockery o the very definition o “acts.” “acts.” From here, obedient liberals on social media can engage engag e in tweets, Facebook posts, online debates, Youube video posting or other orms o content distribution, all while citing these “authorita “authoritative” tive” news sources and act-checkers, claiming, “See? It’s all al l true!” Trough this method, utterly abricated “acts” “acts” can then achieve what propagandists call a “consensus confirmation.” Once a lie has achieved this “consensus,” it is then assumed to to be true by the non-logic assertion that i enough people believe something, something , it must thereore be true.

27


Tis assertion is, o course, utterly absurd. At one time, nearly all human beings on the planet believed believed the Earth was was flat. Te Flat Flat Earth Earth view had achieved “consensu “consensus” s” and therethereore, according to modern lef-wing media standards, needed no evidence to back it up. It must be be true, the saying went, because almost everybody believed it. In exactly the same way, the monopolist media has erected outrageous abrications and achieved “consensus” “consensus” (majority) agreement ag reement on many issues, even when they are rooted in utter nonsense. Examples:

EXAMPLE #1) Nearly all members o the monopolist media—as well as their news consumers—believe that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” which must be eliminated rom the atmosphere in order to achieve a more “green” planet. Such an idea makes a complete mockery o legitimate leg itimate science, botany and atmospheric atmospheric chemistry, given that CO2 is precisely the molecule that greens g reens the planet by powering the biochemistry o plants. echnically, CO2 should be called the “greening molecule,” as higher concentrations o CO2 in the atmosphere lead to a resurgence o rainorests, the blooming o flowers in rainorests (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-29-higher-carbon-dioxide-in-theatmosphere-more-flowers-blooming-tropical-orests.html), the recapture o arid lands into ood producing lands, the accelerated production o ood via ood crops and many other benefits. Tis simple scientific act seems to have never been acknowledged by any “authoritative” news organization, which is equivalent to the NY NY  continuing continuing to insist that the Earth is flat.

Example #2) Te entire “Russia collusion” coll usion” hoax—which claimed cla imed that the rump rump campaign campaig n deliberately colluded with “the Russians” to steal the election rom Hillary Clinton—is rooted in an elaborate network o shared delusions, deep state abrications and alse belies. o date, not a single shred o legitimate evidence has been ound that shows such collusion. Furthermore, Furthermore, the entire entire media establishment establishment has ailed to report the mechanism by which an election could be “stolen” in the first place. Were voting machines hacked? Were voters orced to vote or someone they hate? President Obama himsel stated clearly that U.S. 28


elections are “too decentralized” to be stolen. (He made this statement at a time when he and most others believed Clinton could not be deeated.) Te claimed influence o a ew hundred thousand dollars in Facebook ads is absurd when compared compared to the nearly $1 billion in campaign unds  unds raised and largely spent by Hillary Clinton (not to mention the 90% pro-Clinton slant o the media itsel ). Te entire “Russians stole the election” narrative narrative is the greatest example o actual ake a ke news our modern society has ever witnessed. So why isn’t CNN demanding that that CNN itsel be deplatormed or broadcasting ake news? I verifiable truth is the real measure o news authority, authority, CNN has no authority at all. all .

Example #3) Te entire monopolist media continues to assert three blatant lies about vaccines and immunology immunology:: 1) Tat vaccines are are perectly sae and have have no risks whatsoever, 2) Tat vaccines always save lives and never spread inectious disease, 3) Tat vaccines are rooted in irreutable science that no person can question, ever. All three assertions are provable lies. For example, the U.S. government itsel has paid out over $3 billion in damage settlements to amilies o vaccine-damaged children. (http://www ( http://www.v .vaccines.news/2016-0 accines.news/2016-06-06-i-v 6-06-i-vacaccines-are-sae-why-has-th cines-are-sae-why-has-the-us-gov-paid-out e-us-gov-paid-out-3-billion-to-vaccine-3-billion-to-vaccine-injured injured-amilies.html). -amilies.html). Government statics contained in the VAERS reporting system openly admit to thousands o children being harmed or killed by vaccines each year (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html). According to the CDC, CDC , vaccines contain numerous ingredients which are well-documentwell-documented to be neurotoxic substances, including ormaldehyde, mercury, monosodium glutamate and many others (http://www.natur (http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_ alnews.com/037653_vaccine_addit vaccine_additives_thime ives_thimerosal_ rosal_ ormaldehyde.html). Further, vaccine insert sheets themselves openly admit that certain vaccines may spread inectious disease due to “viral shedding” (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-30flu-vaccine-bombshell-630-more-aerosolized-flu-virus-particles-emitted-by-people-whoreceived-flu-shots-flu-vacc received-flu-shots-flu-vaccines-actually-spr ines-actually-spread-the-flu.h ead-the-flu.html). tml).

29


Natural News has published photos o actual flu shot vaccine inserts which unambiguously state that flu shots have “no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza.” (https://www.naturalnews.com/048422_lu_shot_scientiic_raud_controlled_trials. html) Te same insert sheet states, “Saety and effectiveness o FLULAVAL in pediatric patients have not been established.” Yet, the mere publishing o a vaccine insert sheet alongside accurate citing o the words on the sheet now earns you a “ake news” attack by the media monopolists, all a ll o whom ridiculously claim that vaccines have have no risks and are universally rooted in irreutable science which may never be questioned, by decree. Similarly, the mere publishing o government statistics regarding vaccine injuries and deaths is vigorously attacked by the monopolist media as “ake news” and “anti-science,” even though such reports are rooted in real statistics and irreutable science. Te vaccine issue alone proves that media monopolists are irreconcilable with “truth” by any reasonable definition o the term. Tey systematically and repeatedly lie about vaccines, and they go out o their way to smear the reputations o any individual or organization that dares awaken the public to legitimate, science-based questions about vaccine saety, vaccine ingredients or vaccine adverse events. Tis is not a lef vs. right issue, either. One o the most prominent organizations now questioning the elaborate vaccine cover-up cover-up carried out by the CDC-obedient media is none other than Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., o the World Mercury Project (WorldMercuryProject.org). In conclusion, the news establishment’s attack on the independent media as being “ake news” is rooted in the alse idea that certain selected human human beings have a divine monopoly on truth. Tis is psychologically psycholog ically impossible, as every ever y human being sees the world through through the distortions o their own experience. When a group o distorted individuals orms a news network—such as CNN—the distortions are multiplied, not nullified. Joining a monopolist news network, in other words, does not erase your perceptions and belies. I anything, it amplifies them. Te very assertion that one group o human beings who derive their paychecks rom

30


centralized, monopolistic news sources have a “divine right” to interpret interpret truth exclusively to their point o view is, itsel, ake news. Tus, when CNN proclaims InoWars to be ake news, CNN makes a mockery o itsel by demonstrating the actions o a ake news network that is terrified o being made obsolete by a ar more genuine and truthul competitor. competitor.

Te allac al lacyy o “hate speech” and and lef-wing lef-wing anaticism One o the pillars o the internal justifications or banning political speech is the invocation o “hate speech.” Internet gatekeepers such aass Google, Goo gle, You You ube and Facebook, Facebook , deliberately deliberat ely conflate the label lab el o “hate speech” with conservative views, pretending that individuals seeking to deend their national borders are thereore by definition “haters” o ethnic illegal immigrants. Similarly, cultural agendas such as LGB transgenderism are considered “love” by the lef-leaning internet gatekeepers, meaning by definition that any who oppose a transgenderism agenda—including the transgender indoctrination o children—must be primarily motivated by “hate.” In essence, anything anything the Lef wants to promote is labeled “love” while everything conservatives support is labeled “hate.” “hate.” Tese labels are arbitrarily assigned based entirely entirely on tribal bias, utterly ailing any legitimate test o universal rules or log ic. For example, i a universal rule is written that says individuals may honor their cultural heritage, that rule r ule must then be selectively reversed exclusively or people who are white Southerners in America, since the bigoted Lef believes belie ves that white people who live in the South must never be allowed to celebrate their own history and culture, as an example.

31


“Hate speech” is being defined by those who are, themselves, filled with hatred toward America, Christian Christians, s, unborn unborn babies and and individual liberties Trough this gross distortion and selective reasoning, the label “hate speech” has been used to shadow ban, blacklist and outright ban content that is pro-America, pro-rump, pro-Second Amendment, Amendment, pro-liberty, pro-Christian, pro-lie and so on. on. While While any any o these positions could be described as “love” by a reasonable person—we love America, we love rump, we love our gun rights, we love liberty, we love God, we love unborn babies—the intellectually dishonest Lef chooses to arbitrarily describe them in terms o “hate.” “hate.” What is the basis o such a label? Tere is no logical basis. Te “hate” “hate” label label actually expresses the inner hatred o Lefists more than anything attributable to someone else. Use o the “hate speech” term simply comes down to whatever positions the political Lef opposes. Essentially, Lefists who run the tech giants o today almost universally believe that all opposition against their agendas is rooted ro oted in “hate” and must thereore be silenced. Stated another way, definitions o “hate” as promoted by internet gatekeepers are, not sur prisingly, prisingly, almost impossible impossible to define in any logically consiste consistent nt way. way. For For example, example, to to expre express ss pride in your culture culture is rejoiced i you are Arican-A Arican-Americ merican, an, LGB, LGB, emale emale or a reugee, but to express pride in your culture i you are a Christian, male, heterosexual or Caucasian is immediately branded “hate.” Tus, the very definition o “hate” defies all attempts at a reasonable definition. It all boils down to the irreutable realization reali zation that “hate speech” speech” is simply any speech which contradicts the shifing narratives o the political Lef .

32


Te political Lef has abandoned any willingness willingness to participate participate in in discussion discussion or or debate Notably, the Lef in America today no longer believes that dialog or debate can serve any useul unction in achieving their authoritarian goals. With the help o internet giants, they have shifed their goals to outright censorship, a kind o online book burning in the modern world. Voices Voices o opposition to their agendas a gendas must never be allowed to exist at all, they believe, and this belie can only be described as a kind o “anaticism” “anaticism” among the very Lefists who absurdly believe that they operate out o a monopoly on LOVE.

Leftists in America no longer believe believe that open dialog or debate can serve any useful function in achieving their authoritarian goals. goals. “Hate speech” is the convenient label used to silence silence all opposition.

“Hate speech” has become the No. 1 justification among tech giants or banning independent media websites. When Youube moderators, or example, encounter something they don’t like—such as a video o a #MAGA hat or the American flag—they decide to feel hateul in their own minds, allowing al lowing them to flag the video as a s “hate speech.” speech.” Hate Hate speech is the Salem Witch rials rials test o the modern technology era. Tey throw you in a pond, and i you float, you’re obviously a witch who needs to be burned at the stake. I you sink, you’re innocent but dead. Similarly, Google, Facebook, Youube and witter moderators run your content through the virtual witch hunt o “hate speech,” declaring

33


that i your speech makes somebody—anybody—eel offended, you must be engaged in hateul conduct, and that violates their community community guidelines. g uidelines.

Whoever has the power to define “hate” and use it as justification for censorship has has obtained the power to dictate the content of every ever y opinion uttered online.

But who determines the definition o hate? Te most hateul members o modern society societ y, o course: Te very Lefists who hate America, hate the President, hate the Constitution, hate the Bill o Rights, hate reedom o speech, hate the American flag, hate America’s Founding Fathers, hate law and order, hate the police, hate the energy industry, hate white people, hate Christians, hate God and hate almost a lmost everything else that most Americans Americans value. Tus, the haters have been put in charge o deciding the very definition o hate speech, and they predictably wield that authority as a weapon to punish their political enemies, whom they also hate.

34


Summary o Part Tree: • Te purpose o controlling controlli ng the “news” “news” is to control the narratives that strongly influence the belies and actions o news consumers consumers or a multitude o purposes, including shaping the outcome o political elections. • Te news establishment’s establishment’s assertion asserti on that they are merely reporting acts without bias is raudulent raudulent and deliberately deceptive. • “Fake “Fake news” news” is the actual actual business model o the establishmen establishmentt media monopolists, monopolists, who knowingly knowingly exploit and abuse their positions o news authority to broadcast disinormation and propaganda or the purpose o covert social influence. • “Hate speech” speec h” is a fictitious abrication invoked by the authoritarian authoritarian Lef to silence their targeted political enemies. Tere is not logically consistent definition o “hate speech” that any Lefist can describe, because no such universal standard exists. • Whoever has has the power power to define “hate” “hate” gains the the power power to dictate dictate the content content o every every opinion uttered online. Such power, concentrated in the hands o a biased ew, is extraordinarily traordinarily dangerous to any ree society. s ociety.

35


Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure o News Consumption Understanding how inormation consumers connect with news o ully grasp how news censorship is achieved, it’s crucial to understand the ways in which news consumers come into contact with news sources and inormation. Te method o contact determines the most effective method o censorship, as you will wil l see explained below b elow..

Direct URLs and Apps Tis is achieved when users open a web browser and directly enter the URL o the website they wish to visit (i.e. www.trump.news). Tis approach is decentralized and puts consumers in control. However, many news consumers are surprisingly lazy, and some don’t even know the internet exists outside o Facebook. Accordingly, many internet users rely on other aggregators or “eeders” to eed them news articles, removing control rom the individual. Direct Access can also be achieved by download an app or a news publishers and running that app on a mobile device. Google Go ogle and Apple, not surprisingly, surprisingly, have censored certain apps to crush their competition competition and block consumers rom accessing inormation inormation that Google Goog le doesn’t doesn’t want people to see. For example, GAB.ai saw its app blocked by Google under the justification justification that that GAB.ai allowed people to express “hate “hate speech” speech” on its platorm. platorm.

36


News Aggregators News aggregators include the Drudge Report (www.DrudgeReport.com), Google News, Censored.news (owned by this author) and others. News aggregators serve a utility unction o compiling news headlines rom many different sources, sources, potentially saving time or news consumers. However However,, while some news aggregators ag gregators are entirely uncensored and pull every headline rom the sources which are scanned (such as Censored.news), most news aggregators make either manual or human-programmed, automated editorial decisions, compiling a list o desired headlines to show visitors (Drudge Report, Google News, etc.) News aggregators can save time or users and help them discover news sources they may not have otherwise ound on their own. However, they cede some level o control to the aggregation entity, taking away power rom the individual and concentrating it in the hands o the aggregator ag gregator who can engage enga ge in “censorship “censorship by omission” and simply reuse to list any news source they don’t like. echnically, because no news aggregation website can possibly cover every news source on the ‘net, ‘net, all news aggregators ag gregators assert some level o editorial control, merely by deciding which news sources to include. Google News, amously, purged itsel o nearly all independent media sources beginning in 2012, leading to it becoming a homogenized echo chamber o controlled media monopolists.

Newseeds Facebook is the best example o a “newseed,” “newseed,” which presents content (videos, links, images) or end user consumption but controls the eed to down-rank and “shadow ban” certain sources which are targeted with punitive ranking ranking algorithms. alg orithms. For For example, Facebook allows end users to “like” or ollow certain news publishers such as InoWars or Natural News. However, when InoWars posts a new article on Facebook, the distribution o that article is typically 99.9% suppressed suppressed (shadow banned), allowing the article to only appear among 0.1% o the ollowers who have raised their hands and asked to receive InoWars articles.

37


witter is, in essence, a eed system where users are able to ollow oll ow particular twitter users or monitor hashtag-containing tweets. Just as with Facebook, witter can also “shadow ban” users by reusing to distribute their tweets to all their twitter ollowers. Te “shadow” “shadow” part o shadow banning comes rom the realization that the original author o the tweet has no idea their message is being largely banned. From From their point o view, the tweet was accepted and broadcast to all al l their ollowers, but in reality, real ity, it may have only reached a tiny raction o their ollowers because the witter corporation disagrees with the content o what they sought to express. Te mechanism o banning certain sources in “eeds” is a black box algorithm, secretly carried out using unknown variables or outcomes. Companies like l ike Facebook reuse to disclose the inner mechanisms or variable weighting o their algorithms, and such algorithms a lgorithms may in act consist largely o an internal list o “Which “ Which publishers do we hate today?”

Public Platorms / Social Media Public platorms such as Youube and Facebook claims to provide independent content creators a public space through which they can broadcast their own content to ollowers. Trough this content channel, content creators are able to post various types o content, depending on the platorm platorm in question (photos, videos, articles, tweets, links, etc.). Public platorms platorms achieve a tipping point o utility in the minds o users when a critical mass o other users are using the same platorm, allowing or a very large user base to intermix their interests, opinions and conversations. conversations. Getting big, big , in other words, makes the public platorm website website even more dominant dominant in the industry industry via a sel-reinorcing eedback loop o perceived public utility. utility. (In other words, nobody wants to visit a social so cial media website i nobody else is using it. Similarly, Similarly, no one wishes to visit an unpopular dance club. People People go where others others congregate, precisely because because they are seeking social interaction.) interaction.) During their growth, public platorms asserted the promise that content creators would not be censored or blacklisted without just cause. Tis allowed Youube, Facebook, Pinterest, Snapchat and other similar sites to attract enormous numbers o users. Once 38


the critical mass o utility was achieved, many o these public platorms began selectively shadow banning or deplatorming selected users based on the politics o their content, thus violating the original promise made by the platorms. On the positive side, public platorms allow one individual to potential reach a very large larg e established audience without needing to build their own publishing sites or services, but they also subject individual content creators to sudden and unjustified termination, shadow banning, “doubt “doubt interruptions” interruptions” or other orms o oppression and censorship (see complete list in the next chapter). In essence, as the tech giants are currently operated, whoever controls the platorm ultimately controls the speech which is allowed the be broadcast on that platorm. For the internet internet to survive sur vive as an inrastructure rooted in individual liberty and reedom o speech, the status quo o platorm censorship must must obviously be wholly reormed.

Search engines Many news consumers use search engines (like Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo) to locate and read news articles. Search engine ranking algorithms alg orithms are a “black box” that’s that’s routinely manipulated to down-rank certain independent news sources which are targeted by the tech giants. Without needing to outright ban a particular source, a search engine operating operating with nearious intent can down-rank a particular source to the point o online oblivion. Internet user behavior tells us that news sources which do not rank in the first page pa ge o search results receive almost no traffic rom such search results. Tis author believes that Google assigns “bonus “ bonus”” ranking boosts to manually-chosen websites such as CNN.com, granting them heightened visibility that was not earned through the merit o their content. Search algorithms are, in essence, weighted by an “authoritative” score which is largely determined by the personal opinions o Google engineers and management, most o whom tend to strongly lean toward a lef-wing bias as evidence by 39


the James Damore lawsuit against Google (https://www.newstarget.com/2018-0 (https://www.newstarget.com/2018-01-17-191-17-19insane-tidbits-rom-james-damoresinsane-tidbits-rom-james-damores-lawsuit-about-googles-office-environ lawsuit-about-googles-office-environment.ht ment.html). ml). Te end result is that conservative or independent news sources almost certainly endure unearned punishments punishments in Google’ G oogle’ss ranking algorithm, alg orithm, all o which are manually inflicted by human processes. o date, Google Goog le has reused to disclose its ranking algorithm alg orithm and considers it a proprietary secret. Te secrecy, o course, permits Google Goog le to manually tweak its algorithm in whatever way it wishes, including exerting unearned punitive bias against websites which happen to exist on Google’s ever-expanding “hate list” o websites which promote conservatism, natural health or other “banned” “ banned” topics.

Email Newsletters Many independent media publishers rely on email newsletters to directly reach their audience via email. However, two o the most prominent email destinations—Gmail and Yahoo Mail—systematically block emails rom content sources they don’t like, halting the delivery o such emails to their email users. Tus, Google can exert the power to ban a publisher’s channel on Youube, blacklist that same publisher’s publisher’s web pages pag es on Google.com Goo gle.com and even block that publisher’s publisher’s email newsletters rom being delivered to gmail.com users. Tis is a “triple threat” threat” censorship regime that grants Google Goog le an alarming level o control over over the delivery o communications communications across the internet, even to users who have specifically asked to receive such communications (such as email newsletters to which they have subscribed). In essence, Gmail is claiming to serve the unction o a postal carrier who delivers mail you’ve you’ve requested to your mailbox. But during the delivery, delivery, Gmail carriers open and read your mail, and i they they don’t don’t like what what they read, they trash your your letter and reuse reuse to deliver deliver it. Google actively and mercilessly pursues this intererence action against targeted publishers on a daily basis. While interering with the delivery o a U.S. Postal Service letter is a elony crime, Google actively intereres with the delivery o electronic mail on a minute-by-minute basis, with no apparent criminal liability whatsoever.

40


Summary o Part Four: • For each o these methods methods by which users users connect with news sources (direct URLs, news aggregators, newseeds, search engines, email newsletters), internet gatekeepers maintain an array o weapons and tools to block communications and isolate users rom the news sources they actively wish to see. (Keep reading to discover the censorship mechanisms, below.) • Additionally, Additionally, non-technical censorship methods such as reputation assassination and demonization add additional layers o censorship control. Tese are discussed in more detail, below.

41


Part Five: echnological and Psychological Methods o Overt and Covert Censorship Censorship o targeted websites is achieved not only through technical (mechanical) means, but also through the coordinated application o psychological weapons which intend to create doubt and mistrust toward targeted websites / publishers.

echnical methods me thods o censoring censoring targeted targeted independent news outlets While other methods exist, the primary technical methods with the most destructive destructive impact are: • • • • •

Demonetization Shadow banning Deplatorming Black box search algorithms Email intererence

Demonetization Internet gatekeepers don’t stop at merely banning, shadow banning or blocking accounts; they also engage in a kind o economic warare known as “demonetization.” Tis orm o economic warare against independent media publishers is widely practiced by Google and Facebook by cutting off publishers rom customary revenue sources 42


(advertising) which are simultaneously kept in place or “agreeable” news publishers (i.e. lef-wing content publishers). Demonetization, Demonetization, which began beg an in earnest ollowing the 2016 President election, has been devastating to the vast majority o independent publishers, with revenues alling 90% among many. Te policy o demonetization was accelerated ollowing the aux outrage campaign organized by the now-discredited Southern Poverty Poverty Law Center Center (SPLC), which organized grassroots efforts to attack advertisers whose ads appeared adjacent to content rom conservative publishers. Tis engineered campaign coalesced into intense pressure inside Google and Facebook to block all advertising rom appearing on channels offering conservative or pro-rump content. Because o Google’s dominant influence in the online advertising marketplace, Google is also able to influence second-tier advertising firms and ad “remark “remarketing” eting” companies to ban ads rom certain publishers or individuals. Te InoWars Store, or example, was banned rom third-party remarketing remarketing advertising due to pressure rom Google, Googl e, and this took place even though the InoWars Store sells nutritional products, air filters and home living products which are equivalently sold by Amazon, Whole Foods and many other companies. Notably, the ban against InoWars Store remarketing was justified based entirely on the news content o the InoW InoWars platorm, p latorm, not n ot any problem with InoW InoWars Store St ore products. produc ts. Tis means that online advertising giants—and their second-tier advertising partners—are now censoring e-commerce e-commerce based entirely entirely on their personal dislike or the speech spee ch content originating rom a news brand that’s related to to the e-commerce platorm. In the real world, this would be equivalent to a V station banning banning ads rom a car dealer because the owner o that dealer gave a history histor y speech to high school students, honoring honoring the Founding Founding Fathers Fathers o America. “Demonetization” essentially means that i an ad-powered platorm doesn’t doesn’t like your speech, spe ech, they will actively prevent you rom using their services even i the products and services your are offering are broadly represented by other companies who also use their ad services.

43


Such orms o censorship may violate ederal law’s protections o the right to engage in commerce without intererence.

Shadow banning Shadow banning, discussed in some detail earlier, is a deceptive censorship tactic that that gives the originator o content the alse impression that their content was distributed to their ull base o ollowers. In reality, the content content is secretly se cretly banned or most users, and delivery only takes place to a tiny raction o the ollowers who normally expect to receive such inormation. Facebook is inamous or shadow banning selected publishers it does not like. Natural News, or example, has over two million ollowers, but a typical post will only be allowed to reach a ew hundred hundred ollowers (greater ( greater than 99.9% shadow ban rate).

Outright banning / Deplatorming Outright banning means “deplato “deplatorming” rming” a publisher or individual. Tis is a ull  ull banning o their account. Notably, CNN, which has experienced a large drop o its U.S. audience since the 2016 election, is aggressively lobbying Facebook to deplatorm Inowars. CNN apparently sees no conflict o interest in such a demand, even though InoWars is a clear competitor in the news space in which CNN pretends to operate.

Black box search results algorithm tweaking Search engines eng ines and search s earch engine engin e components (such (suc h as the on-site on-s ite search on You ouube) may achieve additional selective censorship o political targets by engaging in “black box algorithmic” banning via search results. When users enter a search term, particular websites selectively and or channels which are not liked by Google, Facebook, witter, etc., may be selectively in the algorithm, a lgorithm, ensuring ensuring that they are artificially moved down the list o secretly penalized in search results to the point o being nearly invisible. 44


Because search algorithms are black box affairs with zero public transparency, no website operator or publisher has any practical way to know whether they are being “black boxed,” nor can they determine the degree to which such bias is being leveled against ag ainst them in a punitive way. way. Many suspect that Google maintains a list o specific domains to penalize in the news space, and that such news websites are heavily heavily penalized in all Google G oogle search results, regardless o the merit o their journalistic reporting. reporting. While Google claims that its search search results results are driven entirely entirely by algorithms, Natural Natural News experienced firsthand firsthand a shocking example o being wholly blacklisted by Google G oogle in 2017, when Google abricated a fictitious justification justification or banning the entire website, alsely claiming that a single third-party ad on one blogger-writ blogg er-written ten article hosted on a subdomain (blogs.naturalnews.com) violated Google’s terms o service and thereore justified the complete de-listing de-listing o the entire root domain and all pages (over 140,000 140,000 pages). (https:// ( https:// www.naturalne www.natura lnews. ws.com/ com/20172017-02-2 02-22-g 2-goo oogl gle-bla e-blackli cklistssts-natura natural-ne l-news-r ws-remove emoves-14 s-1400000000 pages-rom-its-index-memory-holes-n pages-rom-its-index-memory-holes-natural-newsatural-news-invest investigative-articles.html) igative-articles.html) Google urther claimed that independent independent bloggers blog gers who independently contributed contributed to the Natural Natural News “blogs” “ blogs” subdomain were, in some cases, violating Natural Natural News journalistic standards by covertly selling outbound links to publicity seekers. Natural News was able to document that the exact same activity was taking place on BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed, Forbes, CNN and the Huffington Huffington Post, yet Google Goog le never outright banned or penalized any o those websites, proving that Google’s enorcement enorcement o its own policies is rooted in subjective bias rather than airness or equality. (https://www ( https://www.naturalnews.com/ .naturalnews.com/2017-02-25 2017-02-25-afer-bla -afer-blacklistingcklistingnatural-news-google-takes-no-such-action-against-huffpo-buzzeed-orbes-and-cnn-or writers-selling-outbound-links-in writers-selling-outbound-links-in-violation-o-w violation-o-webmaster ebmaster-guidelines.html) -guidelines.html)

Email intererence Email newsletter suppression is also discussed above. It consists o email ISPs (namely Gmail and Yahoo Mail) selectively blocking the delivery o email newsletters and other communications rom publishers they don’t like.

45


In a tech-driven society, society, this is akin to stealing and destroying the postal mail o your neighneig hbors merely because you hate their politics, yet Google G oogle and Yahoo Yahoo pursue these malicious actions on a daily basis, without any apparent apparent repercussions.

Outsourcing censorship In order to achieve aggressive agg ressive censorship goals without implementing implementing such censorship via internal internal policies, nearly all tech giants outsource their censorship to third-party third-party organizaorganiza tions, almost all o which have their own history o errors and extreme bias. Te primary organizations currently currently employed as “censorship “censorship outsourcing” centers are: • Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), (SPLC) , a radical radica l lef-wing activism group that routinely labels Christian and Bible groups “hate groups.” • SNOPES, a widely widely discredited discredited “act-checking” “act-checking” organization run by by extreme extreme lef-wing activists who appear to care more about political influence than credible acts. • Politiact, similar to SNOPES in terms terms o its lack o credibility but ar more organized and well-unded. Politiact renders renders the majority o its decisions in avor o Democrats and has been repeatedly caught applying sel-contradictory “rules” in a highly subjective way, way, depending on which political party might mig ht benefit rom any given decision. • Wikipedia, an anonymous anonymous “trolling” “trolling” encyclopedia run by a multitude o tribal tribal trolls, each with their own political or corporate agenda. Wikipedia, notably, has zero accountability and no pragmatic quality control process whatsoever, yet Google and other search engines almost universally cite Wikipedia as a credible source on nearly everything. By outsourcing censorship censorsh ip tasks to radical ra dical lef-wing l ef-wing organizations, organ izations, tech te ch giants like l ike You You ube and Facebook can legitimately claim they aren’t censoring anyone or political speech. It’s the third-party groups that are doing it with the consent o Youube, you see.

46


Propaganda / psychological methods o censoring independent news publishers In addition to technical methods o censorship, both tech giants and media monopolists engage in a number o extremely damaging psychological censorship methods which are designed to destroy their intended targets. • • • •

Doubt interrupts Character assassination assass ination / reputation destruction Fake news / hate speech accusations Intimidation o personnel

Doubt interrupts A “doubt interrupt” is an interruption o the user experience by the internet gatekeeper, taking place immediately afer an end user attempts to click on or share a URL rom an independent news website which has been targeted or censorship. ypically, a warning message or pop-up will appear to the user, all or the purpose o creating doubt in the mind o the user. Such messages may warn the user about the link in question containing “malicious code” (even when it doesn’t) or consisting o “ake news” (a scurrilous, subjective claim). Tese “doubt interrupts” allow internet gatekeepers to suppress the sharing or discovery o content without technically banning such content. It’s much like going grocery shopping with a riend, and every time you reach or a product on the shel, your riend says, “Oh man, I don’t know about that one, I’d think twice beore buying that.” Te engineering o doubt is a very effective psychological propaganda weapon now being widely deployed in the censorship war. Doubt interrupts interrupts rely on “trusted flaggers”— flagg ers”—third third party censors which are selected precisely or their lef-wing bias—to flag particular URLs or web domains or such interruption 47


warning messages. It is widely believed that Google may be about to integrate “doubt “doubt interrupts” into the Chrome browser itsel, which would flag websites as “untrusted” when a user attempts attempts to visit that site. Te source o this list, o course, would be a biased, unethical, lef-leaning organization such as the SPLC.

Character assassination / reputation destruction When outright outright censorship censorship isn’t isn’t enough to destroy destroy a targeted independen independentt news publisher, publisher, a psychological warare tactic known as “character assassination” is ofen invoked to create doubt in the minds o would-be ollowers. ollowers. Character Character assassination is requently requently carried out by a combination combination o lef-wing media monopolists (like CNN), late-night comedy shows (Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, etc.) and Wikipedia trolls, who populate the targeted Wikipedia page with alse al se and deamatory inormation inormation targeting the mark. Te classic example o character assassination taking place today is the coordinated, widespread character attack on Alex Jones, which has involved media monopolists literally attempting to offer cash rewards to ormer employees and associates o Jones i they would go public with any accusations, true or otherwise, which could be used to smear Jones. Te key element in character assassination, as practiced by organized media monopolists, is to make the accusations as outrageous and memorable as possible so that even i a small retraction is later orced to be made, the original imagery o the accusation remains remains firmly fixed in the minds o the public. Tis is precisely why character smear attempts are deliberately laced with very specific, vulgar imagery that is nearly impossible to erase rom consciousness, even i the original accusation is retracted. Te claim, or example, that “Alex “Alex Jones hires people peopl e who wear Nazi Nazi symbols symb ols on their shoes” is a lot more memorable and specific than merely saying, “Alex Jones is a bad person.” (For

48


the record, I’ve been in the InoWars studios many times and I’ve never seen a Nazi symbol anywhere. But that didn’t stop the UK Daily Mail rom making similarly outrageous and alse claims about InoWars, all filled with truly bizarre, imaginary accusations.)

“Fake “Fake news” / “hate speech” accusations Te accusation o “ake news” or “hate speech” is ully ull y covered elsewhere in this document. document. Te purpose o such accusations is to paint the targeted publisher with a dishonest reputareputation, calling into question everything they publish, even i the vast majority o their news reporting is actual and reflective o high hig h quality journalism standards. standards.

Intimidation Intimidation o personnel Independent news publishers are urther subjected to coordinate oppression attempts through the intimidation o their staff members, including writers. Indy media writers are routinely threatened, harassed and smeared by coordinated trolls which are empowered by character assassination attacks, “act check” smear campaigns and other tactics openly pursued by by media monopolists such as CNN. For this reason, the vast majority o writers who publish on independent media websites today use pen names or their own protection. Similarly, most email addresses used by staffers who work or indy media publishers are also based on pen names rather than real names. Te importance o this protective strategy is urther underscored by the increasing requency o “doxxing” “doxxing” attacks by hysterical Lefists, who routinely publish the names and home addresses o their targeted enemies, ofen alongside direct calls or violence or stalking behavior against such persons.

49


Te uture o the internet: Only one “official” opinion will be allowed or each topic o discussion In essence, the combination o censorship, suppression, intimidation and other tactics will, will , i not stopped, lead to a uture internet internet where only one “official” opinion is allowed a llowed or any given topic o discussion. Any publishers deviating rom that that official opinion will be blacklisted, shadow banned or otherwise disconnected rom the internet and its marketplace o ideas. Te “official” opinion, o course, will be decided by the internet gatekeepers whose own leaders and employees tend to represent represent the radical Lef wing o politics, ronting increasingly irrational and indeensible ideas as “truths” such as the absurd idea that any nation which protects protects its own border is inherently inherently racist and and evil. Im Imagine agine surfing surfing the internet internet in a world where where no dissenting dissenting views or original original thoughts o any kind kind are tolerated tolerated by internet internet gatekeepers, and where China-style “social scores” are tracked or individual users, granting them influence and power in accordance with how closely they promote the “official” opinions o the gatekeepers. Astonishingly, Google, Facebook and other tech giants are rapidly and deliberately maneuvering maneuvering the online world into precisely such a dystopian trap, all in the name o “equality” and “inclusiveness,” no less. Te monopolist media is, quite disturbingly, cheering cheering it on.

50


Imagine surfing the web in America and receiving receiving a penalty to your “social score” for for visiting websites flagged as “untrusted” by the media monopolists.

When CNN demands that Facebook Facebook deplatorm Ino InoW Wars, what CNN is really real ly asserting is the idea that no opinions may be allowed al lowed to exist on the ‘net at all i they do not wholeheartedly agree with CNN’s views, however absurd or deceptive they may be. Tis assertion runs counter counter to the very reedom to think, and it smacks o a dangerous tilt toward authoritarianism that’s now being strongly advocated among Lef-leaning institutions which are panicked about the act that they have lost control over the narratives which determine “reality” in a hyper-connected society. In their panic, they are demanding what is essentially an “off with their heads” response to any competing news publishers they cannot control. Being deplatormed is the online equivalent o being executed, and that is precisely why CNN is calling or it... because it is a orm o extreme extreme virtual violence which orever silences intended targets.

51


Summary o Part Five: • Internet Internet gatekeepers gatekeepers rely on a vast vast array o technical censorship censorship tools to oppress, oppress, punish punish or eliminate their intended targets (usually independent independent media websites). • Some o the censorship censorship tools operate covertly so that the very very targets being censored are not easily aware o the censorship taking place. • ech giants routinely outsource censorship censorsh ip tasks to extreme lef-wing activist groups so that responsibility or censorship decisions is shifed to a third party part y. • ech giants and media monopolists use use a variety variety o psychological warare warare tools to augment their technical censorship tactics. • I the extreme extreme censorship censorship now being carried carried out across the the internet internet is not not halted, the uture internet will only allow a single “official” opinion to be discussed or shared on any given topic. No debate will be allowed, a llowed, and no dissenti d issenting ng views will be tolerated.

52


Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to echnoyranny Legislative and regulatory solutions or halting the censorship o independent media Te United States government has a compelling interest in preserving the marketplace o ree ideas, even when those ideas are unpopular or consist o criticism against the governg overnment itsel. o accomplish this goal, the United States Congress must act with urgent legislation, and relevant regulators (FCC, FC) must assert regulatory oversight that protects a air and ree marketplace o ideas across the ‘net. We need, in other words, an “Internet Freedom Act.” Below, I list some suggestions o possible legislative or regulatory strategies that may be worthy o urther exploration or protecting the “online dignity” dignit y” o Americans. Americans. In terms o naming these laws, terms and phrases that might be useul include: • • • • •

Online Bill o Rights Te Online Dignity Act Te Right to Exist Online Act Te Internet Freedom Act Te Online Human Human Rights Act

Here are some suggested legislative and regulatory solutions that may be worthy o additional exploration: 53


1) DECLARE HE DOMINAN ONLINE PLAFORMS OF SPEECH O BE “PUBLIC COMMONS” COMMUNICAIONS INFRASRUCURE, ESSENIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL PARICIPAION IN MODERN SOCIEY When an online platorm reaches over 50% market market penetration in its appropriate sector (such as social media, search, videos, etc.) it should be deemed an “essential service” or the public at large, making it subject to laws and regulations that prohibit discriminatory censorship.

2) OULAW HE CENSORING OF CONEN BASED ON POLIICAL VIEWS VIEWS OR “UNPOPULAR” VI VIEWS EWS ON SCIENCE, MEDICINE, HISOR HISORY Y AND RELIGION As part o the legislative and regulatory reorms that are needed today, lawmakers should specifically name content areas (subject (subje ct matter) which are protected by those laws. Protected topics must include politics, science, medicine, history, religion, sexuality and others.

3) RE�UIRE INERNE GAEKEEPERS O OPEN ALL HEIR BLACK BOXES AND PUBLISH HEIR HEIR RANKING RA NKING ALGORIHMS o halt the “voodoo” black box algorithm alg orithm tweaking that artificially boosts lef-wing news publishers while punishing conservative conser vative or independent independent sites, dominant search engines, video platorms platorms and social media platorms platorms must publicly disclose their ranking algoalgo rithms, eed broadcast algorithms alg orithms and other internal internal engines which determine public visibility o content. content.

4) RE�UIRE ECH EC H GIANS O PUBLICLY DISCLOSE HEIR CENSORSHIP CENSOR SHIP,, DEPLAFORMING DEPLAFORMING AND DOWN-RANKING DOWN-R ANKING CONEN POLICIES I tech giants are going to ban content creators or expressing conservative ideas, such companies must publicly and unambiguously disclose that this is their policy polic y. Rather than hiding behind the alse justifications o “hate speech” or “ake news,” tech giants must be honest about naming the philosophies and ideas they are going to ban.

54


For example, You You ube must publicly publi cly state that it i t does not no t allow all ow videos promoting prom oting CBD or medicinal hemp. Facebook must state that pro-rump speech will be banned. And witter must state that i you issue death threats to people while being a conservative, you will be banned, but i you issue death threats while being a liberal, such attacks will be openly tolerated.

5) FINE INERNE GAEKEEPERS FOR COMMIING SELECIVE, POLIICALLY POLII CALLY-MOIV -MOIVA AED CENSORSHIP CENSOR SHIP Enact laws that allow the FC or FCC to issue large fines when dominant tech giants engage in politically-motivated politically-motivated censorship. Such fines should start at $1 billion bill ion and go up rom there.

6) INVOKE RICO AC INDICMENS AND PROSECUIONS AGAINS FACEBOOK, ALPHABE AND OHER INERNE GAEKEEPERS FOR WAGING MAFIA-SYLE CAMPAIGNS OF INIMIDAION AND OPPRESSION On the law enorcement enorcement side, Facebook and other tech giants g iants are already engaged engag ed in racketeering activities which could be prosecuted under under existing law. law. Tis would, o course, first require reestablishing the important o the rule r ule o law at both the FBI and DOJ. DO J. Perhaps Perhaps Robert Mueller should drop the issue o Russian jokers j okers and instead take up the investigainvestigation o American tech traitors.

7) SEEK CRIMINAL INDICMENS AGAINS FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, YOUUBE AND WIER FOR INERFERING IN HE 2018 ELECIONS AND COMMIING COMMIING WHA WHA ROBER MUELLER CALLS A “CONSPIRACY “CONSPIRACY O DEFRAUD HE UNIED SAE OF AMERICA” Robert Mueller charged a Russian company with attempting to deraud the United States o America by running ads on Facebook. Yet what Facebook itsel does to silence conser vative voices across America is a ar more serious attempt to deraud America and sway

55


elections. By silencing conservative voices in a coordinated, malicious campaign, tech giants are right now attempting to “steal” the 2018 mid-term elections.

8) PASS LAWS LAWS HA H A ALLOW INDIVIDU INDI VIDUALS ALS WHO HAVE HAVE BEEN BEE N CENSORED CENS ORED FOR POLIICAL P OLIICAL REASONS RE ASONS O SUE HE DOMINAN ONLINE PLAFORMS PLAFORMS FOR ACUAL DAMAGES AND PUNIIVE DAMAGES One way to halt online censorship by tech giants is to make it financially unwise or them to engage in such actions. Tis can be achieved by passing laws that allow the victims o censorship—whose personal lives, proessional lives and small businesses have been destroyed—to stroyed—to sue the tech giants or damages.

9) RE�UIRE INERNE GAEKEEPERS O BE RANSPAREN ABOU SHADOW BANNING, CONEN BANNING AND ACCOUN BANNING When online platorms platorms engage in shadow shadow banning, banning, they must must be transparent transparent with content content creators about the extent o that ban. Instead o “secret” bans—which are equivalent to a secret court—tech giants must be transparent about their algorithms, bans and content down-ranking activities.

10) RE�UIRE INERNE GAEKEEPERS O FOLLOW A RANSPAREN DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE HA ALLOWS CONEN CREAORS O APPEAL CENSORSHI CENSOR SHIP P DECISIONS Content creators are currently denied due process by tech giants, who secretly decide punishments completely outside anything resembling due process. Tis must change, and a process must be created that allows a llows content creators to present evidence in their deense, achieve “discovery” o claims against them, appeal censorship decisions and pursue other customary rules o legal l egal representation. representation. No more secret Google Goog le courts.

56


11) SE UP AN INDEPENDEN ARBIRAION COMMISSION HA ISSUES BINDING DECISIONS ON CENSORSHIP GRIEVANCES BROUGH BY INDEPENDEN PUBLISHERS PUBLISHERS AND CONEN CREAORS CREAORS Another worthy idea is to create an independent independent arbitration commission that hears all censorship sorshi p / deplatorming / shadow banning b anning cases, cases , and to which Google, Goog le, Facebook, Facebook , You You ube and other tech giants must coner authority. Content creators would have the right to participate in the proceedings while offering evidence in their deense. Costs or arbitration would be paid by the loser. loser. Under this system, i a tech giant g iant wished to ban someone, they would have to file a case with the third party part y arbitration organization organ ization which would alert the user to the case so that they could appear in their deense. No bans could be carried out without the decision authority o the arbitration entity, entity, and all decisions would be openly published or public review. r eview. A similar procedure is currently in place regarding domain name intellectual property disputes.

12) OULA OUL AW EMAIL EM AIL ISPs FROM INERFERING INERFER ING WIH HE DELIVERY OF EMAIL HA HA HAS BEEN RE�UESED BY END USERS Just Just as it is current currently ly illegal or individuals individuals or or organizations to interere interere with the the delivery delivery o the U.S. U.S. mail, it should also a lso be illegal illega l or ISPs (such as gmail) gmail ) to interere with with the delivery o email that is requested by the end user. Te ongoing intererence o email newsletter delivery is an insidious orm o selective censorship.

13) BREAK UP GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, WIER AND OHER ECH GIANS UNDER ANIRUS LEGISLAION I the U.S. government has the authority to break up Standard Oil and A&, it also has the authority to break up monopolies in the online space. Te extreme, monopolistic

57


abuse o power now routinely demonstrated demonstrated by Google, Facebook and other tech giants g iants is providing clear justification justification or antitrust legal action that would end the monopolies and decentralize the tech gatekee g atekeepers. pers.

End user actions to break the tech giants’ monopolies End users also play a role in taking back their power rom tech monopolists. End users may: S eek alternatives a lternatives to Google, Goog le, You You ube, Facebook Facebo ok and 1) Migrate to alternative platorms - Seek other dominant tech giants.

2) Build alternative platorms - Construct and launch decentralized, non-corporate-controlled platorms which respect reedom o expression.

Summary Su mmary o Part Part Six: Six : • Legislative and regulatory solutions must must be explored that that can can reel in in the extreme extreme abuse o monopoly power currently being exploited by tech giants to censor voices they don’t like. • Existing law already already provides provides justificatio justification n under under the the RICO Act (racketeering) (racketeering) to criminally indict executives o Google, Facebook and other tech giants. • One possible possible solution solution to censorship might be the creation o an authoritative, authoritative, independent arbitration arbitration commission that would hear cases and issue binding decisions, all a ll with public oversight. • End users users may may help fight back against tech monopolies by seeking out out or building building alternative platorms.

58


About About the Aut Author hor Mike Adams is one o the leading independent media publishers on the ‘net and operates over 350 unique websites, including rump.news, Censored.news and NaturalNews.com. Having been repeatedly repeatedl y censored and an d outright banned banne d by You You ube, Googl Go oglee and Facebook, Facebook , Adams recently launched a Youube alternative video platorm called REAL.video. Adams is a laboratory scientist and is the co-author co -author o a published science paper detailing the discovery o a new method or the accurate quantitation o cannabinoid molecules using mass spectrometry (http://www.chromatographyonline.com/liquid-chromatogra phy-time-flight-mass-spe phy-time-flig ht-mass-spectrometr ctrometry-cannabinoi y-cannabinoid-profiling d-profiling-and-q -and-quantitation-hemp uantitation-hemp-oil -oil). ). He’s the author o Food Forensics (FoodForensics.com), a No. 1 Amazon.com science book, and has received numerous awards or independent independent journalism. Adams’ Adams’ online store, HealthRangerStore.com, HealthRangerStore.com, is a USDA-certified organic ood manuacturing acility and ulfillment center based in exas. Using mass spec laboratory analysis, Adams manuactures manuactures and retails lab-verifi lab -verified ed oods, oo ds, supplements, superoods and personal care products to a niche audience o health-conscious individuals who demand ultra-clean products. Adams is a vocal critic o the pharmaceutical pharmaceutical industry, industry, Monsanto Monsanto and the biotech industry, government corruption and lef-wing politics. Having lived in aiwan and South America, Adams is conversant in Mandarin Chinese and Spanish languages. He is trained to fly small aircraf and has two patents to his name, including a patent or the invention o an emergency dietary supplement that eliminates radioactive cesium-137 rom the body. Tat patent, called “Cesium Eliminator,” was granted approval by the U.S. U.S. Patent and rademark Office in 2016. (https://patents. google.com/patent/US9526751B2/). goog le.com/patent/US9526751B2/). Adams has publicly stated his willingness to donate 10,000kg o the ormula to state or ederal emergency responders in the case o a nuclear event on U.S. soil. s oil. Adams is also the inventor o the Food Rising Mini-Farm Mini-Farm Grow Box (FoodRising.org) (FoodRising.org ) and 59

used 3D CAD sofware to design the 3D-printed parts used in the system. Over O ver a hundred such systems were donated to schools across America to teach children ood sel-reliance. Along with nearly every other prominent truth teller in America today, Adams has been subjected to a well-unded and organized campaign o smears, deamation and character assassination consisting o the deliberate publication o abricated alsehoods intended to destroy his reputation. Labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” Adams is actually a scientifically-trained analyst o reality and is well known or filming and broadcasting a “orensic acoustics analysis” o the Las Vegas shooting which scientifically proved the existence o multiple shooters through simple math and physics. Tat 29-minute science video, which astonished the internet internet and humbled law enorcement enorcement investigators, is available at https:// vimeo.com/237467538 vimeo.com/237467538 Adams resides in exas and voted or President rump. He currently has a show called “Counterthink” which airs each week we ek on the InoW InoWars network n etwork (InoW (InoWars.com). ars.com) . He recentrec ently produced a firearms combat video series called “REAL Sel-Deense,” eaturing firearms instructors rom the U.S. Navy SEALS and United States Marines (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-07-13-real-video-launches-sel-deense-how-to-gun-training-series-eaturing-ormer-navy-seal-and-u-s-marine-combat-instructor.html). Adams supports local law enorcement, enorcement, veterans veterans and the United States military militar y. He is highly hig hly trained in hand-tohand combat, tactical combat firearms deployment deployment and long-range target shooting. Adams is available to brie members o Congress or rump administration staffers on any subject covered in this report. He has no interest in speaking to media monopolists and will not respond to to such contact contact requests.

The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

Recommend Documents