The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

THE CENSORSHIP
MASTER PLAN
DECODED
(i.e. “The Adams Report”)
The blueprint for how tech giants covertly silence online speech, and
how America can fight back against corporate tech monopolists
By Mike Adams, founder, NaturalNews.com, Censored.news, REAL.video, Counterthink.

com, Naturalpedia.com and 300+ more websites, fill-in host for Alex Jones of InfoWars.com,
peer-reviewed science paper author, radiation protection patent holder (“Cesium Eliminator”),
mass spec laboratory founder (CWClabs.com), science book author (“Food Forensics”) and
award-winning investigative journalist
The Censorship Master Plan Decoded
Table of Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
Part One: The Societal Cost of Censorship and the Denial of the Right to Exist....................4
Part Two: The Fight for Reality (censorship motivations and justifications)..........................15
Part Three: The Fallacy of “Fake News”...............................................................................24
Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure of News Consumption..................................36
Part Five: Technological and Psychological Methods of Overt and Covert Censorship..........42
Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to Techno-Tyranny........................................53
About the Author.................................................................................................................59
This document is provided under a Creative Commons license and may be cited in whole or in part,
with credit to the author and a link to the source.
ADDITIONS AND ERRATA: This document may be updated with additional graphics, corrections,
links or updates. The permanent URL for this document in PDF form is:
http://www.NaturalNews.com/Files/Censorship-Master-Plan-Decoded.pdf
I
Introduction
To date, no one has assembled a comprehensive compendium of the aggressive censorship
strategies and mechanisms now being deployed against users being targeted by the tech
giants. This document aims to serve as a primer “blueprint” to explain both the motiva-
tions behind the extreme censorship as well as the technical / mechanical means through
which such censorship is carried out.
This document should be required reading for any lawmaker, regulator or judicial decision
maker interested in protecting the freedom of speech that has served as a critical pillar in
our society for over two centuries.
Today’s attacks on the First Amendment are being carried out by a “triple threat” tag-team
of institutions:
#1) Tech giants - Their role is to carry out the mechanics of censorship, shadow banning,
“doubt interruptions” and other techniques described in this report.
#2) Establishment media - Tasked with promoting the lynch mob mentality of hysteria
and hatred which is translated into widespread calls for silencing whatever voices they don’t
like: CNN’s insistent demand for InfoWars to be deplatformed from Facebook, for example.
#3) Third party fact-checkers and moderators - These groups, such as the SPLC,
Politifact, etc., are given the task of flagging all undesirable political speech (or even speech
about natural health, as you’ll see below) as “hate speech,” creating the justification for tech
giants to ban or deplatform such accounts without having to accept internal organizational
responsibility for discriminating against selected targeted.
These three “fronts” conspire to attack, defame and deplatform originators of certain types
of speech (such as conservative speech, pro-Trump speech, natural health speech, pro-can-
nabis legalization speech, etc.). Traditionally, watchdogs such as the ACLU would strongly
1
speak out against such egregious violations of civil liberties, yet the ACLU, being strongly
affiliated with the politics of the Left, has consciously stood by and watched this “free
speech massacre” take place, saying nothing in dissent.
While the books are burning, in other words, the ACLU is roasting marshmallows by the
fire. (And the EFF is looking around for more chocolate bars.)
Thus, we are now faced with a kind of perfect storm in America—a “free speech apoca-
lypse”—where all the institutions that once called for protections of the freedom of expres-
sion are now actively conspiring to exterminate it. This coordinated attack on free speech
is now taking place in plain view. The agenda is not hidden, nor is it even debatable that
this is taking place. The goal is the complete abolition of all speech that left-leaning tech
giants wish to eliminate, and these efforts have been deliberately accelerated as the 2018
mid-term elections approach, carrying out what can only be called an extreme example of
election interference and a plot to defraud the United States of America by silencing the
voices of those who embody conservative philosophies.
What Robert Mueller accused the Russians of doing—interfering with U.S. elections—is
actually being carried out right now by tech giants, the establishment media and third-par-
ty “fact-checkers.”
Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the

ACLU are all conspiring to defraud the United
States of America by silencing conservative
voices, en masse, in the run up to a critical
election that may decide the fate of our nation.
The United States Congress must act. New laws must be passed and enforced that invoke
the authority of the federal government to prevent dominant online platforms from engag-
ing in the many forms of overt and covert censorship described herein. To write effective
2
laws that protect free speech, lawmakers must understand the technical mechanics of how
censorship is accomplished. That’s the point of this document: To describe the mechanics
of censorship as well as presenting thoughtful intellectual arguments that oppose the con-
solidation of “speech authority” in the hands of power-hungry tech giants, many of which
are owned and run by individuals whose own politics reflect deeply-ingrained hatred
toward America’s founding principles.
If we are to survive as a constitutional Republic, the protection of online speech must now
be pursued with a sense of urgency, or we will soon find ourselves living in a hyper-connect-
ed online society where only one “official” opinion is allowed on any given topic... and that
single allowable opinion is likely to be rooted in irrationality, falsehoods or popular delu-
sions, such as the absurd idea that a biological man can magically transform into a woman,
then compete against women in professional sports even while possessing the genetics,
musculature and sports performance of a male athlete. This very idea, which is obviously
an affront to real women, has been so thoroughly embraced by the political Left that any
who oppose it are immediately flagged for “hate speech.”
Read this document in full. 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 freedom to
speak, but our right to meaningfully participate in the dominant public space platforms
through which social and professional interactions now take place.
The author of this report, Mike Adams, is available to brief members of Congress or Trump
administration staff members with further details and analysis. Adams is located near Austin,
Texas. See further bio details at the end of this report.
3
Part One: The Societal Cost of

Censorship and the Denial of
the Right to Exist
Censorship by tech giants is an assault on the
right to exist in an online-dominated society
The predominant argument of pro-censorship advocates largely consists of claiming that
because Google, Facebook, etc., are private corporations, they can therefore engage in dis-
criminatory censorship of any kind they wish, without restraint or regulatory oversight.
This argument collapses when seen in the context of the broad recognition that partici-
pation in dominant online platforms has become essential for personal, social and profes-
sional interactions in the modern world.
Just as citizens of fifty years ago could not meaningfully participate in society without
phone or electricity service, today’s citizens cannot meaningfully participate in the modern
world without an online presence, expressed through the dominant online communica-
tions platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.
Dominant online platforms have become

essential services for meaningful participation in
modern society.
This is further underscored by the fact that an individual’s online presence exerts forceful
and lasting influence on their personal and social life, professional life, career opportunities
4
and freedom of expression, including the freedom to engage in political debate that may
influence others in elections. To be shadow banned by Facebook or YouTube today is as
destructive to an individual’s quality of life as being surreptitiously cut off from phone
and electricity services in the 1970s, for example, or even denied the right to walk down a
public sidewalk and chat with neighbors.
Facebook is, in essence, the “public square” of modern life, with other adjunct services such
as Twitter and YouTube serving similar social interaction functions.
Yet no reasonable person would argue today that electricity companies, even though they
are private corporations, should have to right to cut off electricity from targeted custom-
ers because the company disagrees with their politics. Similarly, internet service providers
(ISPs) don’t cut off customers who use their services, even when those services are conduits
for forms of expression with which the ISP may vehemently disagree.
Yet according to the distorted justification of the political Left in America today, all private
companies have the inherent right to refuse essential services to selected customers merely
because they disagree with the political views of those customers. By this thinking, banks
should refuse to lend money to Trump supporters. Housing builders should refuse to sell
homes to conservatives. Gasoline stations should carry signs that read, “Conservatives
not allowed to buy gas.” Even iPhone retailers, we’re told, should refuse to sell iPhones to
customers who are Trump supporters, because they might use those iPhones to post pro-
Trump comments that “offend” those who oppose Trump.
There was a time in America where one specific group of people was told to sit at the back
of the bus. Certain cafes were reserved for “whites only,” and people were judged and pun-
ished based on the color of their skin. Online censorship by tech giants now judges people
based on the color of their thoughts, and conservatives, Trump supporters and advocates
of natural health content (see below) are overtly told, “We don’t serve your kind here,”
an obvious throwback to the era of discrimination and intolerance that Americans have
roundly rejected. (Amazingly, this overt discrimination is being carried out by the very
people who proclaim themselves to be “tolerant” and “inclusive.”)
5
In a society that has roundly rejected the

idea that private businesses can discriminate
against people based on the color of their skin,
established media giants are openly demanding
that private businesses now discriminate against
people based on the color of their ideas.
Because of the online nature of modern online, the censorship of individuals on the dom-
inant online platforms of open expression is an attack on their very right to participate in
society. No modern person can meaningfully participate in modern social and professional
interactions without an online presence on one or more social media giants. They have
become “essential services” for modern life, making them just as critical to modern survival
as electricity, housing or phone service.
Many on the political Left attempt to conflate these issues by citing the recent 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 a cake) that violated his
private religious convictions. According to Leftists who are increasingly devoid of 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 of cake baking in the world and clearly
does not control 90% of the cake decorating business in America. Gay customers were free
to rather easily find a vast assortment of other cake shops that would gladly decorate the
cake, and they did not need to violate someone’s religious beliefs in order to achieve that
goal. Finally, Jack Phillips’ cake shop is not an essential public forum for modern society,
quite obviously, and his refusal to engage in artistic expression against his wishes in no way
harmed the gay customers beyond the mere inconvenience of walking down the street to
another gay-friendly cake shop and engaging in a business transaction there.
6
The central deception of tech giants

The tech giants now discriminating against individuals based on the color of their ideas—
companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter—have all pursued a central de-
ception that has only now been exposed.
That deception consists of these companies launching under the false pretense of being
“open platforms” that welcomed free speech from nearly anyone. None of these platforms
launched with an honest warning that stated, for example, “Warning to conservatives:
Your kind aren’t welcomed here.”
Because of this central deception, platforms like Facebook rapidly expanded as indi-
viduals who had channels there promoted the Facebook platform to their own friends,
family members and professional contacts. This allowed Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
etc., to rapidly expand and become the dominant platforms of online expression and
social interaction.
Once their dominant market position was achieved, they then started banning individuals
based on the content of their ideas, deeply violating the original promise and pretense of the
online service. In other words, only after conservatives helped Facebook become the dominant
social media platform did Facebook cut them off from participating in that very platform.
Facebook baited users for over a decade,

exploited those users to build a dominant global
platform, then cut off the speech of certain
selected users whose speech it didn’t like.
In this way, Facebook exploited the good will of its authentic users, then violated its social
contract and business ethics, transforming its once-open platform into a discriminatory
7
echo chamber policed by intolerant, small-minded Leftists who have repeatedly demon-
strated zero tolerance toward speech that violates their own limited worldview.
Facebook, in essence, baited users for over a decade, exploited those users to build a massive
global platform that became the de facto standard for social media interaction, then cut off
the speech of certain selected users whose speech it didn’t like. This means the very premise
of Facebook has been a fraud from day one.
If Facebook had launched its platform with its honest agenda: “Conservatives, Christians
and straight white males are not welcomed here,” it never would have grown to become the
dominant social media platform it has since achieved. The market dominance of Facebook,
in other words, was entirely dependent on executing a “central deception” about its long-
term agenda.
Stated another way, the market success of today’s tech giants could never have been achieved
if they had been honest about their true internal goals of discrimination and censorship.
All of today’s dominant tech giants were built on fraud and deception.
Online censorship is de facto denial of the

right to exist in an interconnected world
To resolve the selective corporate censorship that targets political foes of left-wing America,
lawmakers and internet participants must embrace the understanding that denial of the
right to participate in the dominant online platforms for debate and expression is, in
essence, an attack on the fundamental human right to exist in—and participate in—our
modern tech-driven society.
If there were a broad marketplace of equally competing online services and gatekeepers
with roughly equal market share, each representing different viewpoints or “clusters” of
political thought, users would be free to choose, for example, the “pro-Trump” version of
Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. But no such alternatives exist at anywhere close
8
to even 25% market share. These dominant internet gatekeepers enjoy market share dom-
inance of 80% or better, in their respective categories, meaning that both content creators
and content consumers have no reasonable alternative destinations from which to choose.
Furthermore, all of today’s dominant tech giants lied about their policies from the very
start, pretending to exist as open platforms welcoming all forms of legal speech. Yet after
they achieved dominant market positions, aided by users promoting their channels on
those platforms, they selectively began censoring and deplatforming conservative speech,
casting aside the very people they once promised would be provided a platform for freedom
of expression.
Through this deception, the dominant internet gatekeepers have become the de facto pro-
viders of essential infrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their person-
al and professional lives. To deny individuals their right to exist in modern society—by
shadow banning, deplatforming or artificially throttling their online expression—is to
violate an individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It is to deny their very right to
exist in modern society.
9
Dominant online platforms have become the

de facto providers of essential infrastructure
through which modern citizens carry out their
personal and professional lives. To maliciously
censor those individuals due to the color of their
speech is to deny them the right to meaningfully
participate in modern society.
The political Left applauds the stripping

away of the First Amendment rights of their
political opponents, even while demanding
such rights be protected for themselves
That the political Left in America today sees nothing wrong with the selective termination
of the online existence of targeted political opponents is just as disturbing as the action
itself, for it demonstrates the shocking lack of fairness or tolerance now routinely demon-
strated by left-leaning individuals who themselves benefit from the very channels of expres-
sion they seek to deny to others.
The overriding internal justification for such an egregious—even malicious—justification

is the belief that the only people who should be allowed to participate in modern society
are those whom obediently agree with the ever-expanding list of left-wing “truisms,” many
of which deny the most basic laws of biological and scientific reality (such as the now-com-
mon belief that infants are born as genderless beings who are arbitrarily “assigned” gender
at birth, a belief that grossly contradicts biological and scientific reality).
In essence, Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN, the Washington Post and others are assert-
ing one of the most dangerous and absurd ideas in Unites States history: That if you do not
wholeheartedly agree with the increasingly radical “truths” of left-wing society, you shall
10
be denied the right to exist altogether in modern society. Such positions have been openly
argued in op-eds published in the New York Times, for example, where Bryan W. Van
Norden, a professor of philosophy at Wuhan University in China, argued that no person
should be allowed to speak in the online world unless they are first “properly educated” in
liberal ideology (https://www.newstarget.com/2018-06-27-nyt-op-ed-calls-for-the-com-
plete-silencing-of-all-conservatives-forever.html).
What is his definition of “properly educated?” For starters, he is a Chinese communist

who believes in the supremacy of the state and the permanent subservience of citizens. We
need not explore further, since his very nationality reflects an abusive, anti-humanitarian
authoritative regime that nullifies any legitimacy of his argument.
De facto defamation
Because of the necessity of participation in the online world in order to pursue life, liberty
and happiness in a tech-driven society, the censorship of an individual or organization by
internet gatekeepers is a de facto act of defamation against that individual or organization.
Having your voice silenced by YouTube, for example, announces to the world that you must
be an unscrupulous person of some kind; perhaps someone who violates intellectual prop-
erty laws or who engages in unscrupulous spam. In truth, YouTube, Facebook and other
internet gatekeepers have banned and shadow banned organizations for reasons rooted
entirely in the color of 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 of the online community is that you have been punished for some egregious
violation of ethics or rules, even when your only “sin” might have been to innocently post
educational content the tech giants wish to suppress from public view.
Such suppression, by the way, need not have anything to do with political leanings. My own
YouTube channel (“TheHealthRanger”) was completely shut off, without any warnings or
strikes, following my posting of news report video documenting the true story of a woman
who overcame stage-4 cancer by using CBD oil. That 43-second video, if you wish to review
it, has since been posted on a private account at Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/265601209
11
Keep in mind that these actions were taken during the ramp-up toward the FDA’s approval
of the first CBD-based prescription medication in America, a “drug” named “Epidiolex.”
The drug consists entirely of CBD (cannabidiol), the very same molecule found in CBD
oil and hemp extracts. (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-26-fda-finally-approves-
usa-first-medicine-derived-from-marijuana.html)
(It is an irrefutable scientific principle, by the way, that molecules are identical regardless of
their source. A CBD molecule synthesized by a hemp plant is identical in structure, func-
tion and all chemical properties to a CBD molecule synthesized in a laboratory. For the
FDA or an online platform to state that CBD in a drug form is therapeutic medicine but
CBD from a plant is quackery or hokum is to deny the very existence of molecular science
and the laws of cause of effect. Molecules don’t know how they came to be. Their origins
do not influence their chemical behavior.)
Thus, YouTube is deliberately banning users and entire accounts for discussing the thera-
peutic effects of a plant-derived molecule; the same molecule the FDA has just recognized
as a therapeutic “drug” when sold with a specific brand name. (Epidiolex has no other
active ingredients beyond CBD.) Such actions smack of Big Pharma protectionism and
lend themselves to further investigations of potential collusion and racketeering among
Google, Facebook, drug companies and the FDA.
Facebook has begun to deplatform

prominent natural health channels
Facebook’s baseless censorship of natural health-related accounts experienced a recent
uptick when Facebook banned dozens of health-oriented accounts reaching an estimated
40 million followers. As reported by Phillip Schneider at Natural Blaze (https://www.
naturalblaze.com/2018/07/facebook-purges-over-80-accounts-sweeping-attack-alterna-
tive-media.html), the Facebook purge of natural health websites included:
Collectively Conscious (915K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
12
Healthy Food House (3.4M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
Natural Cures Not Medicine (2.3M followers) – Deleted on June 11th, 2018
Health Awareness (2.5M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
I Want to Be 100% Organic (700K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
Organic Health (230K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
Natural Cures From Food (120K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
Conscious Life News (1.1M follower) – Deleted on June 5th, 2018
... and dozens more. It is possible that some of these accounts may have been restored, but
the fact that they were banned in the first place demonstrates the important point here.
13
Summary of Part One:

• Because society has shifted away from communications in the physical world (U.S. Postal
Service mail, billboards, etc.) and moved almost entirely to electronic communications
and online posting, the very existence of a business, organization or even a personal
reputation depends strongly on their ability to participate in dominant online plat-
forms without being subjected to malicious, selective censorship or shadow banning.
• Censorship is the online equivalent of being personally executed; denied the right to
exist or participate in an online-connected society.
• The banning of online accounts can destroy an entire business (and it has, provably, in
many examples). It can destroy reputations. Most importantly, from the point of view
of the left-leaning tech giants, banning targeted accounts can also strongly influence
future elections by silencing the speech of those whom Facebook and Google do not
want to have a voice.
• The Leftists who run the dominant online platforms demand First Amendment pro-
tections for themselves while demanding such protections be denied to their political
opponents. They are applauding the censorship now taking place, and they are calling
for such efforts to be accelerated.
14
Part Two: The Fight for Reality

(censorship motivations and
justifications)
Why achieving censorship is important to the
centralized media establishment
The purpose of controlled news is to influence and engineer the narratives that form the
beliefs and even the “fabric of reality” for news consumers. One of the reasons corrupt
government universally exerts dominance over its own national media is because whoever
controls the news controls “reality.” That reality is shaped, twisted and sometimes fabricat-
ed entirely from scratch by controlled media outlets which universally declare themselves
to be the sole arbiters of truth in any given society. Losing control of the narrative means
losing control over society.
Since the rise of the internet—a disruptive new structure of connectivity that achieved
mass decentralization of information—the controlled news monopolies have lost their
position of dominant control over the narratives of society. This means they no longer
command absolute authority over the “narrative” interpretation of real-world events, so
their ability to distort or misrepresent those events for their own political control is rapidly
eroding. This was all underscored with the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 elec-
tion—an outcome that could never have occurred without independent, decentralized
media achieving prominent influence on the ‘net.
15
Maintaining monopoly control over cultural

narratives is crucial for 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 of scripted narratives authored to achieve specific psycho-
logical goals, not anything resembling an intellectually honest representation of relevant
events in the real world).
To accomplish this censorship, both media monopolists (i.e. CNN, WashPost, etc.) and
tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) pursue a wide assortment of malicious techniques to
deplatform, shadow ban, smear, disconnect or otherwise down-rank selected independent
media publishers that threaten their news dominance. Many of these methods are pursued
covertly, and they are all pursued with virtually zero regulatory oversight or restriction.
This report outlines those tactics and mechanisms, including both technical and psycho-
logical censorship weapons now deployed by Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN, the New
York Times and others.
What is “news?”
To fully understand the censorship strategies leveled against independent news publishers
by the news establishment, we must first understand the definition of “news.”
The false assertion of establishment news—the public front—claims that news is an ac-
curate, unbiased reporting of real-world events which are relevant to the lives of news
16
consumers. According to establishment news propagandists, they never insert themselves

into the news, and they don’t manipulate the news. They merely report “facts” without any
bias whatsoever, and they claim to have no hidden agendas or ulterior motives whatsoever.
In reality, “news” is the primary conduit through which narratives / stories are implanted
into the consciousness of news consumers. These stories shape the way people think, talk
and behave in society. They even shape the way people vote, revealing the real priority of
the left-leaning news establishment. The label of “news” is simply the cover story for what
might be more accurately called a “national suggestion / influence campaign” which de-
liberately works to influence public opinion, distort the perception of real-world events,
manipulate the minds of 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 of “news” as reported by the establishment media today (CNN,
WashPost, etc.) is fraudulent, 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 of 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 Democrats by enormous margins), the “news” media hoped to create the false
impression that practically everyone in America was voting for Hillary Clinton and that
Trump had no chance whatsoever to win.
17
Under the guise of “news,” the real purpose of this psychological campaign was to deflate
Trump supporters and dissuade them from wasting their time “voting for a candidate who
was doomed to lose anyway.” This is just one example among thousands of how the so-
called “news” media is actually a social manipulation and propaganda platform.
Irrefutable truths of news gathering and

reporting
In attacking the independent media, centralized news monopolists pretend that the fol-
lowing irrefutable truths about news gathering and reporting do not exist:
1) All news institutions make mistakes from time to time
Because news is gathered and reported by human beings who are not immune to mis-
takes, all news institutions will make mistakes from time to time. This is universally ac-
knowledged across all media, yet the controlled media monopolists selectively insist that
independent media may not ever make a single error, or they will be forever accused of
publishing “fake news.”
2) All news institutions make editorial decisions that are filtered through human psy-
chology and are therefore biased at their moment of origin
Because news publishing decisions are filtered through human psychology, they are inher-
ently biased. There is no such thing as a human being who has not experienced the world
from their own self-absorbed point of view. This speaks to the root philosophical question
of, “What is reality?”
In truth, no human being has a monopoly on reality. All humans, including those in the
monopoly media establishment, carry distortions in their worldview. Thus, even if those
individuals attempt a perfect record of unbiased, accurate news reporting, they will inad-
vertently make editorial decisions that are filtered through their own distorted worldview
18
(including decisions of stories to avoid covering, not just editorial angles on stories that are
being covered).
Leftists assign to themselves the imaginary

quality that pretends they alone are able to
see the world with God-like clarity, absent any
distortions or opinions whatsoever. In pretending
to be God, they reveal themselves to be fools.
The 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 testifying
before Congress that he never allowed his “F##k Trump” attitude to creep into his official
duties at the FBI. This imaginary quality that Leftists ascribe solely to themselves—that
they alone see the world with God-like clarity and truth—is the height of self-delusion and
arrogance. Yet it has become the default position of news monopolists, and it forms the
basis for their accusations that others are engaged in “fake news” while they, themselves,
possess the divine right to determine “real news.”
This self-delusion by media monopolists is extremely dangerous to society. It is part of what

makes CNN the “enemy of America,” as President Trump has accurately stated. When an
institution believes it is not merely above the law but also above all judgment because it
defines reality, that institution has plunged down the path of dogmatic self-denial that can
only lead to destructive outcomes for all those involved.
Never forget that the central assertion of media monopolists is that independent media
is incapable of being as “authoritative” as they are, because they alone possess the unique,
divine, superhuman power of omniscience, yet they remain utterly incapable of explaining
how they were able to achieve such powers or why those powers repeatedly fail as demon-
strated by their repeated news errors and corrections.
19
Does a reporter magically gain omniscience immediately upon being added to the CNN
payroll? The idea is, of course, absurd. Yet this is precisely what CNN asserts it is somehow
able to achieve. This assertion, of course, must be made with the extreme intellectual dis-
honesty that comes from knowing that CNN itself makes repeated, egregious errors in its
own reporting. Occasionally, it even corrects such errors.
In essence, media monopolists claim they are gods who possess the divine right to interpret
reality for the masses. This claim smacks of journo-cultism, as it is no different from the
delusions of the high priests of ancient Maya or Aztec cultures, who also proclaimed that
only a select class of divinely-ordained individuals could speak to God and interpret reality
for the masses. In many cases, they then kidnapped children, stabbed them in the heart and
threw them down the stone stairs of elaborate pyramids in a visually stunning “sacrifice”
that demanded absolute obedience and conformity among the stunned masses. Today,
CNN essentially demands the same power and obedience, but instead of sacrificing just a
few children, anti-truth news organizations like CNN and the anti-America Washington
Post are willing to sacrifice our entire nation in their quest for absolute power and universal
obedience among the masses.
The very fabric of our society is now being deliberately sacrificed by media and tech mo-
nopolists in their desperate, destructive quest to regain narrative control at any cost.
3) A more legitimate definition of “fake news” should be rooted in the principle of the
intention of the people producing their news
If a news institution intends to produce accurate news, but makes a mistake and acciden-
tally publishes news with an error, is that “fake news?” Of course not: That’s legitimate
journalism with an occasional error. When such errors are committed by established news
monopolists, those errors are universally considered to be 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 forever smeared by the news monopolists with labels of “fake news,”
20
repeatedly referring to the original error as a prime example of the fakery of 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.”
This double standard is, of course, unfair by design. In essence, established news monop-
olists believe that they alone have a divine right to make an unlimited number of errors
(usually on the front page) and then correct them later (in small print on page five), while
they simultaneously believe that error corrections issued by independent news organiza-
tions should never be recognized at all.
The classic example of this gross double standard is the media’s incessant accusation against
Alex Jones of InfoWars, claiming that he stated no one died at Sandy Hook. While early
reporting by Jones could have been interpreted by reasonable people as inferring that con-
clusion, Jones has since repeatedly and wholly corrected the record on that front and has
publicly offered to meet with the parents of the children who were killed in order to apolo-
gize to them in person. To the knowledge of this author, there is not a single news monop-
olist 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 to consist of accusations that he claimed no children died at Sandy Hook, even
though he has repeatedly and thoroughly retracted any such claim.
Accepting the corrections of independent news organizations, of course, would eliminate

the “fake news” narrative that CNN uses as a weapon to call for the outright banning of
InfoWars. The assertion is that InfoWars must never be allowed to correct any news report,
but that CNN, WashPost, NYT and other outlets are universally allowed to publish stories
21
containing serious factual errors, even if they never bother to prominently correct them at
all. For example, where is the Washington Post apology to President Trump for repeatedly
and falsely accusing him of conspiring with the Russians to steal the election?
CNN, as another example, never reports that the Washington Post is fake news, even
though WashPost has been repeatedly caught publishing stories containing document-
ed, serious factual errors rooted in sloppy journalism and an utter disregard for any
serious fact-checking. The Washington Post, for example, had to forfeit a Pulitzer Prize
after being caught utterly fabricating the entire article series which earned the prize in
the first place (https://www.naturalnews.com/056196_Washington_Post_fake_news_
Pulitzer_Prize.html).
A short list of Washington Post news fakery can be found at:

https://www.naturalnews.com/049967_Washington_Post_fake_journalism_media_
propaganda.html
A far more detailed list of documented media lies, propaganda and deliberate fake news
has been published by independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson. See all 55 mistakes, most
of which have never been retracted or corrected, at this link:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/07/11/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-de-
finitive-list
Notably, the very organizations who claim the independent media is engaged in “fake news”
are, themselves, the worst offenders who traffic in such deceptions. CNN and WashPost,
for example, deliberately distort reporting on events, fabricate fake “anonymous sources,”
selectively bury news stories they don’t want the public to see, and engage in a long list
of other dishonest, deceptive activities that clearly qualify their organizations as being
engaged in fake news.
CNN, for example, repeatedly fakes the locations of reporters, using green screen chroma
key background replacements that mislead viewers or situating two reporters on the
opposite sides of a parking lot while pretending they are hundreds or thousands of miles
22
apart. (https://www.infowars.com/cnn-anchors-pretend-theyre-having-a-satellite-inter-
view-even-though-theyre-in-the-same-parking-lot)
If Facebook were to ban any organizations for repeatedly engaging in fake news, CNN and
the Washington Post would, by any reasonable definition, be at the very top of that list.
Similarly, if Google News abided by any realistic standards of journalistic integrity, both
CNN and the Washington Post would have to be permanently banned.
Summary of Part Two

• Control of public narratives is viewed by media monopolists as critical for controlling
the masses.
• “News” is the label used by media monopolists who pretend to be engaged in a public
service when they are actually engaged in public indoctrination and deceptive influ-
ence campaigns.
• All news organizations commit errors. Media monopolists pretend that their errors
don’t count.
• Establishment media operatives pretend they possess a divine, god-like ability to discern
reality without bias, and they claim that they alone have access to this ability.
23
Part Three: The Fallacy of

“Fake News”
The fallacy of “real” news vs. fake news
The push for the outright banning of so-called “fake news” is rooted in the logical fallacy
that only one particular institution or group of organizations has a special, divine monop-
oly on facts. This argument is equivalent to the pre-Magna Carta construct that Kings
derived their power from God, and thus Kings had a divine right to order peasants to do
their bidding. The King was always presumed to be right, the belief held, because his infor-
mation was divinely touched and therefore defined what was right vs. wrong.
Today, establishment news institutions claim a similar “divine right” to be the sole arbi-
ters of truth vs. fiction. This claim is, of course, utterly absurd, as those very institutions
are largely devoted to fabricating 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 de-
scribed as the “weaponization” of news for the purpose of thrusting ideas into the minds
of the masses so that individuals might make decisions opposed to their own self interest.
The key goal of media monopolists is to thrust

ideas into the minds of news consumers that
encourage them to take actions which contradict
their own self-interest.
In other words, the real purpose of the centrally-controlled news establishment is to

prevent citizens from forming their own free conclusions and acting on those conclusions
24
with intelligence and rationality. When independent media sources encourage individual
self-aware thinking and skepticism about the establishment interpretation of real-world
events, those media sources must be vigorously attacked, smeared and suppress by the es-
tablishment in order to eliminate competing narratives that might cause news consumers
to “snap out” of their “news hypnosis,” so to speak.
This underscores the power of a single question, such as a child asking, “Why is the Emperor
naked?” (A reference to the Emperor Has No Clothes fable.) Because a single question
from a non-conforming, non-hypnotized independent source can disrupt the mass influ-
ence engineering of conformist crowds, the highest priority of establishment news mo-
nopolists must be to silence all opposing voices so that they dare not utter a single question
which might challenge the engineered fabrications of the 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
news narratives.
Simple questions such as, “Why has the U.S. government never released video footage of
a commercial jetliner crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11?” tend to awaken people from
their numbed news slumber. Such opening questions may also lead to additional uncom-
fortable 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?” (This 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 exis-
tence of that third building from the minds of the public.)
25
Continued compliance to false mainstream

news narratives requires ongoing, repeated
indoctrination and information dominance
by propagandists
In essence, censorship of the independent media is a necessary component of the contin-
uous (but fragile) indoctrination of the news consuming public. Just as a stage hypnotist
knows that continued compliance with the programmed suggestions requires a support-
ive, non-confrontational environment which accepts the bizarre actions of the hypnosis
subject as “normal,” news monopolists also understand that the success of their own fake
news narratives cannot be achieved if there is even a single interruptive voice that pesters
the hypnotized masses with provocative questions.
In the realm of hypnosis and NLP, this is called a “pattern interrupt,” and in the world of
independent media, Alex Jones is the key “interruptor” due to both the provocative nature
of his content as well as his aggressive delivery style. It is precisely this kind of combination
of content and delivery that can “snap” people out of a mental slumber. This is exactly why
Alex Jones is the No. 1 target of the news monopolists who depend on zero interruptions
for the continued success of their disinformation narratives which are packaged as “news.”
Alex Jones is targeted under the accusation of

“fake news,” but the real reason he’s attacked
is because he interrupts the continuous
indoctrination efforts of globalist-run media
outlets.
Reiterated, it takes constant repetition of disinformation to lull news consumers into a

news trance, but it takes just one interrupter to break the spell and jolt people back to their
26
senses. Alex Jones is the mental “jolt” of modern news, which is exactly why he is directly
targeted by the news establishment for immediate termination. The justification for tar-
geting Jones is the claim that he engages in “fake news,” but the real reason for targeting
Jones is because he shatters the near-hypnotic influence of media monopolists, causing
news consumers to question their reality.
How media monopolists transform a lie into

a new “truth”
“Fake news” accusations of the established media monopolists are often supported by citing
other established media monopolists. This circular reasoning asserts that because the NYT,
for example, is an “authoritative” source, anything appearing in the NYT is automatically
true. Even if it is factually in error, this new “truth” is then cited by the Washington Post or
CNN in order to spread the falsehood under the cover of “authoritative” news (which is
also, of course, put into the highest ranking positions by Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc.).
From there, second-tier propaganda organizations such as BuzzFeed, Politico or Salon craft
their own propaganda stories, citing NYT, WashPost and CNN as “authoritative” sources.
The lie is further “fact-checked” into existence by Snopes, Politifact or other scurrilous
“fact-checking” organizations, nearly all of which are entirely dominated by left-wing bias
and technically make a mockery of the very definition of “facts.”
From here, obedient liberals on social media can engage in tweets, Facebook posts, online
debates, YouTube video posting or other forms of content distribution, all while citing
these “authoritative” news sources and fact-checkers, claiming, “See? It’s all true!”
Through this method, utterly fabricated “facts” can then achieve what propagandists call a
“consensus confirmation.” Once a lie has achieved this “consensus,” it is then assumed to be
true by the non-logic assertion that if enough people believe something, it must therefore
be true.
27
This assertion is, of course, utterly absurd. At one time, nearly all human beings on the
planet believed the Earth was flat. The Flat Earth view had achieved “consensus” and there-
fore, according to modern left-wing media standards, needed no evidence to back it up. It
must be true, the saying went, because almost everybody believed it.
In exactly the same way, the monopolist media has erected outrageous fabrications and
achieved “consensus” (majority) agreement on many issues, even when they are rooted in
utter nonsense. Examples:
EXAMPLE #1) Nearly all members of the monopolist media—as well as their news
consumers—believe that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” which must be eliminated from
the atmosphere in order to achieve a more “green” planet. Such an idea makes a complete
mockery of legitimate science, botany and atmospheric chemistry, given that CO2 is pre-
cisely the molecule that greens the planet by powering the biochemistry of plants.
Technically, CO2 should be called the “greening molecule,” as higher concentrations of

CO2 in the atmosphere lead to a resurgence of rainforests, the blooming of flowers in
rainforests (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-29-higher-carbon-dioxide-in-the-
atmosphere-more-flowers-blooming-tropical-forests.html), the recapture of arid lands
into food producing lands, the accelerated production of food via food crops and many
other benefits.
This simple scientific fact seems to have never been acknowledged by any “authoritative”
news organization, which is equivalent to the NYT continuing to insist that the Earth is flat.
Example #2) The entire “Russia collusion” hoax—which claimed that the Trump campaign
deliberately colluded with “the Russians” to steal the election from Hillary Clinton—is
rooted in an elaborate network of shared delusions, deep state fabrications and false beliefs.
To date, not a single shred of legitimate evidence has been found that shows such collusion.
Furthermore, the entire media establishment has failed to report the mechanism by which
an election could be “stolen” in the first place. Were voting machines hacked? Were voters
forced to vote for someone they hate? President Obama himself 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 defeated.) The claimed influence of a
few hundred thousand dollars in Facebook ads is absurd when compared to the nearly $1
billion in campaign funds raised and largely spent by Hillary Clinton (not to mention the
90% pro-Clinton slant of the media itself ).
The entire “Russians stole the election” narrative is the greatest example of actual fake news
our modern society has ever witnessed. So why isn’t CNN demanding that CNN itself be
deplatformed for broadcasting fake news? If verifiable truth is the real measure of news
authority, CNN has no authority at all.
Example #3) The entire monopolist media continues to assert three blatant lies about
vaccines and immunology: 1) That vaccines are perfectly safe and have no risks whatsoev-
er, 2) That vaccines always save lives and never spread infectious disease, 3) That vaccines
are rooted in irrefutable science that no person can question, ever. All three assertions are
provable lies.
For example, the U.S. government itself has paid out over $3 billion in damage settlements
to families of vaccine-damaged children. (http://www.vaccines.news/2016-06-06-if-vac-
cines-are-safe-why-has-the-us-gov-paid-out-3-billion-to-vaccine-injured-families.html).
Government statics contained in the VAERS reporting system openly admit to thousands
of children being harmed or killed by vaccines each year (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html).
According to the CDC, vaccines contain numerous ingredients which are well-document-
ed to be neurotoxic substances, including formaldehyde, mercury, monosodium glutamate
and many others (http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_
formaldehyde.html).
Further, vaccine insert sheets themselves openly admit that certain vaccines may spread
infectious disease due to “viral shedding” (https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-30-
flu-vaccine-bombshell-630-more-aerosolized-flu-virus-particles-emitted-by-people-who-
received-flu-shots-flu-vaccines-actually-spread-the-flu.html).
29
Natural News has published photos of actual flu shot vaccine inserts which unambigu-
ously state that flu shots have “no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza.”
(https://www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.
html) The same insert sheet states, “Safety and effectiveness of FLULAVAL in pediat-
ric patients have not been established.” Yet, the mere publishing of a vaccine insert sheet
alongside accurate citing of the words on the sheet now earns you a “fake news” attack by
the media monopolists, all of whom ridiculously claim that vaccines have no risks and are
universally rooted in irrefutable science which may never be questioned, by decree.
Similarly, the mere publishing of government statistics regarding vaccine injuries and
deaths is vigorously attacked by the monopolist media as “fake news” and “anti-science,”
even though such reports are rooted in real statistics and irrefutable science.
The vaccine issue alone proves that media monopolists are irreconcilable with “truth” by
any reasonable definition of the term. They systematically and repeatedly lie about vac-
cines, and they go out of their way to smear the reputations of any individual or organi-
zation that dares awaken the public to legitimate, science-based questions about vaccine
safety, vaccine ingredients or vaccine adverse events.
This is not a left vs. right issue, either. One of the most prominent organizations now ques-
tioning the elaborate vaccine cover-up carried out by the CDC-obedient media is none other
than Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of the World Mercury Project (WorldMercuryProject.org).
In conclusion, the news establishment’s attack on the independent media as being “fake
news” is rooted in the false idea that certain selected human beings have a divine monopoly
on truth. This is psychologically impossible, as every human being sees the world through
the distortions of their own experience. When a group of distorted individuals forms 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 beliefs. If
anything, it amplifies them.
The very assertion that one group of human beings who derive their paychecks from
30
centralized, monopolistic news sources have a “divine right” to interpret truth exclusively
to their point of view is, itself, fake news. Thus, when CNN proclaims InfoWars to be fake
news, CNN makes a mockery of itself by demonstrating the actions of a fake news network
that is terrified of being made obsolete by a far more genuine and truthful competitor.
The fallacy of “hate speech” and left-wing

fanaticism
One of the pillars of the internal justifications for banning political speech is the invoca-
tion of “hate speech.”
Internet gatekeepers such as Google, YouTube and Facebook, deliberately conflate the label
of “hate speech” with conservative views, pretending that individuals seeking to defend
their national borders are therefore by definition “haters” of ethnic illegal immigrants.
Similarly, cultural agendas such as LGBT transgenderism are considered “love” by the
left-leaning internet gatekeepers, meaning by definition that any who oppose a transgen-
derism agenda—including the transgender indoctrination of children—must be primarily
motivated by “hate.”
In essence, anything the Left wants to promote is labeled “love” while everything conserva-
tives support is labeled “hate.” These labels are arbitrarily assigned based entirely on tribal
bias, utterly failing any legitimate test of universal rules or logic. For example, if a universal
rule is written that says individuals may honor their cultural heritage, that rule must then
be selectively reversed exclusively for people who are white Southerners in America, since
the bigoted Left believes 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, Christians, unborn babies and
individual liberties
Through 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-Trump,
pro-Second Amendment, pro-liberty, pro-Christian, pro-life and so on. While any of these
positions could be described as “love” by a reasonable person—we love America, we love
Trump, we love our gun rights, we love liberty, we love God, we love unborn babies—the
intellectually dishonest Left chooses to arbitrarily describe them in terms of “hate.”
What is the basis of such a label? There is no logical basis. The “hate” label actually express-
es the inner hatred of Leftists more than anything attributable to someone else. Use of the
“hate speech” term simply comes down to whatever positions the political Left opposes.
Essentially, Leftists who run the tech giants of today almost universally believe that all
opposition against their agendas is rooted in “hate” and must therefore be silenced.
Stated another way, definitions of “hate” as promoted by internet gatekeepers are, not sur-
prisingly, almost impossible to define in any logically consistent way. For example, to express
pride in your culture is rejoiced if you are African-American, LGBT, female or a refugee,
but to express pride in your culture if you are a Christian, male, heterosexual or Caucasian is
immediately branded “hate.” Thus, the very definition of “hate” defies all attempts at a rea-
sonable definition. It all boils down to the irrefutable realization that “hate speech” is simply
any speech which contradicts the shifting narratives of the political Left.
32
The political Left has abandoned any

willingness to participate in discussion or
debate
Notably, the Left in America today no longer believes that dialog or debate can serve any
useful function in achieving their authoritarian goals. With the help of internet giants,
they have shifted their goals to outright censorship, a kind of online book burning in the
modern world.
Voices of opposition to their agendas must never be allowed to exist at all, they believe,
and this belief can only be described as a kind of “fanaticism” among the very Leftists who
absurdly believe that they operate out of a monopoly on LOVE.
Leftists in America no longer believe that open

dialog or debate can serve any useful function
in achieving their authoritarian goals. “Hate
speech” is the convenient label used to silence
all opposition.
“Hate speech” has become the No. 1 justification among tech giants for banning indepen-
dent media websites. When YouTube moderators, for example, encounter something they
don’t like—such as a video of a #MAGA hat or the American flag—they decide to feel
hateful in their own minds, allowing them to flag the video as “hate speech.”
Hate speech is the Salem Witch Trials test of the modern technology era. They throw you
in a pond, and if you float, you’re obviously a witch who needs to be burned at the stake.
If you sink, you’re innocent but dead. Similarly, Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter
moderators run your content through the virtual witch hunt of “hate speech,” declaring
33
that if your speech makes somebody—anybody—feel offended, you must be engaged in

hateful conduct, and that violates their community guidelines.
Whoever has the power to define “hate” and use

it as justification for censorship has obtained
the power to dictate the content of every opinion
uttered online.
But who determines the definition of hate? The most hateful members of modern society,
of course: The very Leftists who hate America, hate the President, hate the Constitution,
hate the Bill of Rights, hate freedom of 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 everything else that most Americans
value. Thus, the haters have been put in charge of deciding the very definition of hate
speech, and they predictably wield that authority as a weapon to punish their political
enemies, whom they also hate.
34
Summary of Part Three:

• The purpose of controlling the “news” is to control the narratives that strongly influ-
ence the beliefs and actions of news consumers for a multitude of purposes, including
shaping the outcome of political elections.
• The news establishment’s assertion that they are merely reporting facts without bias is
fraudulent and deliberately deceptive.
• “Fake news” is the actual business model of the establishment media monopolists, who
knowingly exploit and abuse their positions of news authority to broadcast disinforma-
tion and propaganda for the purpose of covert social influence.
• “Hate speech” is a fictitious fabrication invoked by the authoritarian Left to silence

their targeted political enemies. There is not logically consistent definition of “hate
speech” that any Leftist can describe, because no such universal standard exists.
• Whoever has the power to define “hate” gains the power to dictate the content of every
opinion uttered online. Such power, concentrated in the hands of a biased few, is ex-
traordinarily dangerous to any free society.
35
Part Four: Decentralization

and the Structure of News
Consumption
Understanding how information consumers
connect with news
To fully grasp how news censorship is achieved, it’s crucial to understand the ways in which
news consumers come into contact with news sources and information. The method of
contact determines the most effective method of censorship, as you will see explained below.
Direct URLs and Apps

This is achieved when users open a web browser and directly enter the URL of the website
they wish to visit (i.e. www.trump.news). This approach is decentralized and puts con-
sumers in control. However, many news consumers are surprisingly lazy, and some don’t
even know the internet exists outside of Facebook. Accordingly, many internet users rely
on other aggregators or “feeders” to feed them news articles, removing control from the
individual.
Direct Access can also be achieved by download an app for a news publishers and running
that app on a mobile device. Google and Apple, not surprisingly, have censored certain apps
to crush their competition and block consumers from accessing information that Google
doesn’t want people to see. For example, GAB.ai saw its app blocked by Google under the
justification that GAB.ai allowed people to express “hate speech” on its platform.
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 func-
tion of compiling news headlines from many different sources, potentially saving time for
news consumers. However, while some news aggregators are entirely uncensored and pull
every headline from the sources which are scanned (such as Censored.news), most news
aggregators make either manual or human-programmed, automated editorial decisions,
compiling a list of desired headlines to show visitors (Drudge Report, Google News, etc.)
News aggregators can save time for users and help them discover news sources they may
not have otherwise found on their own. However, they cede some level of control to the
aggregation entity, taking away power from the individual and concentrating it in the
hands of the aggregator who can engage in “censorship by omission” and simply refuse to
list any news source they don’t like. Technically, because no news aggregation website can
possibly cover every news source on the ‘net, all news aggregators assert some level of edi-
torial control, merely by deciding which news sources to include.
Google News, famously, purged itself of nearly all independent media sources begin-
ning in 2012, leading to it becoming a homogenized echo chamber of controlled media
monopolists.
Newsfeeds
Facebook is the best example of a “newsfeed,” which presents content (videos, links, images)
for end user consumption but controls the feed to down-rank and “shadow ban” certain
sources which are targeted with punitive ranking algorithms. For example, Facebook allows
end users to “like” or follow certain news publishers such as InfoWars or Natural News.
However, when InfoWars posts a new article on Facebook, the distribution of that article
is typically 99.9% suppressed (shadow banned), allowing the article to only appear among
0.1% of the followers who have raised their hands and asked to receive InfoWars articles.
37
Twitter is, in essence, a feed system where users are able to follow particular twitter users or
monitor hashtag-containing tweets. Just as with Facebook, Twitter can also “shadow ban”
users by refusing to distribute their tweets to all their twitter followers. The “shadow” part
of shadow banning comes from the realization that the original author of the tweet has no
idea their message is being largely banned. From their point of view, the tweet was accepted
and broadcast to all their followers, but in reality, it may have only reached a tiny fraction
of their followers because the Twitter corporation disagrees with the content of what they
sought to express.
The mechanism of banning certain sources in “feeds” is a black box algorithm, secretly
carried out using unknown variables or outcomes. Companies like Facebook refuse to dis-
close the inner mechanisms or variable weighting of their algorithms, and such algorithms
may in fact consist largely of an internal list of “Which publishers do we hate today?”
Public Platforms / Social Media

Public platforms such as YouTube and Facebook claims to provide independent content
creators a public space through which they can broadcast their own content to followers.
Through this content channel, content creators are able to post various types of content,
depending on the platform in question (photos, videos, articles, tweets, links, etc.).
Public platforms achieve a tipping point of utility in the minds of users when a critical mass
of other users are using the same platform, allowing for a very large user base to intermix
their interests, opinions and conversations. Getting big, in other words, makes the public
platform website even more dominant in the industry via a self-reinforcing feedback loop
of perceived public utility. (In other words, nobody wants to visit a social media website if
nobody else is using it. Similarly, no one wishes to visit an unpopular dance club. People go
where others congregate, precisely because they are seeking social interaction.)
During their growth, public platforms asserted the promise that content creators would
not be censored or blacklisted without just cause. This allowed YouTube, Facebook,
Pinterest, Snapchat and other similar sites to attract enormous numbers of users. Once
38
the critical mass of utility was achieved, many of these public platforms began selectively
shadow banning or deplatforming selected users based on the politics of their content,
thus violating the original promise made by the platforms.
On the positive side, public platforms allow one individual to potential reach a very large
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 interruptions” or other forms of oppression and censorship (see
complete list in the next chapter).
In essence, as the tech giants are currently operated, whoever controls the platform ulti-
mately controls the speech which is allowed the be broadcast on that platform. For the
internet to survive as an infrastructure rooted in individual liberty and freedom of speech,
the status quo of platform censorship must obviously be wholly reformed.
Search engines
Many news consumers use search engines (like Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo) to locate
and read news articles. Search engine ranking algorithms are a “black box” 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 with ne-
farious intent can down-rank a particular source to the point of online oblivion. Internet
user behavior tells us that news sources which do not rank in the first page of search results
receive almost no traffic from such search results.
This author believes that Google assigns “bonus” ranking boosts to manually-chosen web-
sites such as CNN.com, granting them heightened visibility that was not earned through
the merit of their content. Search algorithms are, in essence, weighted by an “authorita-
tive” score which is largely determined by the personal opinions of Google engineers and
management, most of whom tend to strongly lean toward a left-wing bias as evidence by
39
the James Damore lawsuit against Google (https://www.newstarget.com/2018-01-17-19-

insane-tidbits-from-james-damores-lawsuit-about-googles-office-environment.html). The
end result is that conservative or independent news sources almost certainly endure un-
earned punishments in Google’s ranking algorithm, all of which are manually inflicted by
human processes.
To date, Google has refused to disclose its ranking algorithm and considers it a proprietary
secret. The secrecy, of course, permits Google 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” of websites which promote conservatism,
natural health or other “banned” topics.
Email Newsletters
Many independent media publishers rely on email newsletters to directly reach their au-
dience via email. However, two of the most prominent email destinations—Gmail and
Yahoo Mail—systematically block emails from content sources they don’t like, halting the
delivery of such emails to their email users.
Thus, Google can exert the power to ban a publisher’s channel on YouTube, blacklist that
same publisher’s web pages on Google.com and even block that publisher’s email newslet-
ters from being delivered to gmail.com users. This is a “triple threat” censorship regime that
grants Google an alarming level of control over the delivery of 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 function of a postal carrier who delivers mail
you’ve requested to your mailbox. But during the delivery, Gmail carriers open and read
your mail, and if they don’t like what they read, they trash your letter and refuse to deliver
it. Google actively and mercilessly pursues this interference action against targeted pub-
lishers on a daily basis. While interfering with the delivery of a U.S. Postal Service letter
is a felony crime, Google actively interferes with the delivery of electronic mail on a min-
ute-by-minute basis, with no apparent criminal liability whatsoever.
40
Summary of Part Four:

• For each of these methods by which users connect with news sources (direct URLs,
news aggregators, newsfeeds, search engines, email newsletters), internet gatekeepers
maintain an array of weapons and tools to block communications and isolate users
from the news sources they actively wish to see. (Keep reading to discover the censor-
ship mechanisms, below.)
• Additionally, non-technical censorship methods such as reputation assassination and

demonization add additional layers of censorship control. These are discussed in more
detail, below.
41
Part Five: Technological and

Psychological Methods of Overt
and Covert Censorship
Censorship of targeted websites is achieved not only through technical (mechanical)
means, but also through the coordinated application of psychological weapons which
intend to create doubt and mistrust toward targeted websites / publishers.
Technical methods of censoring targeted

independent news outlets
While other methods exist, the primary technical methods with the most destructive
impact are:
• Demonetization
• Shadow banning
• Deplatforming
• Black box search algorithms
• Email interference
Demonetization
Internet gatekeepers don’t stop at merely banning, shadow banning or blocking accounts;
they also engage in a kind of economic warfare known as “demonetization.”
This form of economic warfare against independent media publishers is widely prac-
ticed by Google and Facebook by cutting off publishers from customary revenue sources
42
(advertising) which are simultaneously kept in place for “agreeable” news publishers (i.e.
left-wing content publishers).
Demonetization, which began in earnest following the 2016 President election, has been
devastating to the vast majority of independent publishers, with revenues falling 90%
among many. The policy of demonetization was accelerated following the faux outrage
campaign organized by the now-discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which
organized grassroots efforts to attack advertisers whose ads appeared adjacent to content
from conservative publishers. This engineered campaign coalesced into intense pressure
inside Google and Facebook to block all advertising from appearing on channels offering
conservative or pro-Trump content.
Because of Google’s dominant influence in the online advertising marketplace, Google is

also able to influence second-tier advertising firms and ad “remarketing” companies to ban
ads from certain publishers or individuals. The InfoWars Store, for example, was banned
from third-party remarketing advertising due to pressure from Google, and this took place
even though the InfoWars Store sells nutritional products, air filters and home living prod-
ucts which are equivalently sold by Amazon, Whole Foods and many other companies.
Notably, the ban against InfoWars Store remarketing was justified based entirely on the
news content of the InfoWars platform, not any problem with InfoWars Store products.
This means that online advertising giants—and their second-tier advertising partners—are
now censoring e-commerce based entirely on their personal dislike for the speech content
originating from a news brand that’s related to the e-commerce platform. In the real world,
this would be equivalent to a TV station banning ads from a car dealer because the owner
of that dealer gave a history speech to high school students, honoring the Founding Fathers
of America.
“Demonetization” essentially means that if an ad-powered platform doesn’t like your speech,
they will actively prevent you from using their services even if the products and services your
are offering are broadly represented by other companies who also use their ad services.
43
Such forms of censorship may violate federal law’s protections of the right to engage in
commerce without interference.
Shadow banning
Shadow banning, discussed in some detail earlier, is a deceptive censorship tactic that gives
the originator of content the false impression that their content was distributed to their
full base of followers. In reality, the content is secretly banned for most users, and delivery
only takes place to a tiny fraction of the followers who normally expect to receive such
information.
Facebook is infamous for shadow banning selected publishers it does not like. Natural
News, for example, has over two million followers, but a typical post will only be allowed
to reach a few hundred followers (greater than 99.9% shadow ban rate).
Outright banning / Deplatforming

Outright banning means “deplatforming” a publisher or individual. This is a full banning
of their account. Notably, CNN, which has experienced a large drop of its U.S. audience
since the 2016 election, is aggressively lobbying Facebook to deplatform Infowars. CNN
apparently sees no conflict of interest in such a demand, even though InfoWars is a clear
competitor in the news space in which CNN pretends to operate.
Black box search results algorithm tweaking

Search engines and search engine components (such as the on-site search on YouTube) may
achieve additional selective censorship of political targets by engaging in “black box algo-
rithmic” banning via search results. When users enter a search term, particular websites
or channels which are not liked by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., may be selectively and
secretly penalized in the algorithm, ensuring that they are artificially moved down the list of
search results to the point of 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 them in a pu-
nitive way. Many suspect that Google maintains a list of specific domains to penalize in the
news space, and that such news websites are heavily penalized in all Google search results,
regardless of the merit of their journalistic reporting.
While Google claims that its search results are driven entirely by algorithms, Natural News
experienced firsthand a shocking example of being wholly blacklisted by Google in 2017,
when Google fabricated a fictitious justification for banning the entire website, falsely
claiming that a single third-party ad on one blogger-written article hosted on a subdomain
(blogs.naturalnews.com) violated Google’s terms of service and therefore justified the
complete de-listing of the entire root domain and all pages (over 140,000 pages). (https://
www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-22-google-blacklists-natural-news-removes-140000-
pages-from-its-index-memory-holes-natural-news-investigative-articles.html)
Google further claimed that independent bloggers who independently contributed to the
Natural News “blogs” subdomain were, in some cases, violating 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, Forbes, CNN and
the Huffington Post, yet Google never outright banned or penalized any of those websites,
proving that Google’s enforcement of its own policies is rooted in subjective bias rather
than fairness or equality. (https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-25-after-blacklisting-
natural-news-google-takes-no-such-action-against-huffpo-buzzfeed-forbes-and-cnn-for-
writers-selling-outbound-links-in-violation-of-webmaster-guidelines.html)
Email interference
Email newsletter suppression is also discussed above. It consists of email ISPs (namely
Gmail and Yahoo Mail) selectively blocking the delivery of email newsletters and other
communications from publishers they don’t like.
45
In a tech-driven society, this is akin to stealing and destroying the postal mail of your neigh-
bors merely because you hate their politics, yet Google and Yahoo pursue these malicious
actions on a daily basis, without any apparent repercussions.
Outsourcing censorship
In order to achieve aggressive censorship goals without implementing such censorship via
internal policies, nearly all tech giants outsource their censorship to third-party organiza-
tions, almost all of which have their own history of errors and extreme bias. The primary
organizations currently employed as “censorship outsourcing” centers are:
• Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a radical left-wing activism group that routinely
labels Christian and Bible groups “hate groups.”
• SNOPES, a widely discredited “fact-checking” organization run by extreme left-wing

activists who appear to care more about political influence than credible facts.
• Politifact, similar to SNOPES in terms of its lack of credibility but far more organized
and well-funded. Politifact renders the majority of its decisions in favor of Democrats
and has been repeatedly caught applying self-contradictory “rules” in a highly subjec-
tive way, depending on which political party might benefit from any given decision.
• Wikipedia, an anonymous “trolling” encyclopedia run by a multitude of tribal trolls,

each with their own political or corporate agenda. Wikipedia, notably, has zero ac-
countability 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 tasks to radical left-wing organizations, tech giants like YouTube
and Facebook can legitimately claim they aren’t censoring anyone for political speech. It’s
the third-party groups that are doing it with the consent of YouTube, you see.
46
Propaganda / psychological methods of

censoring independent news publishers
In addition to technical methods of censorship, both tech giants and media monopolists
engage in a number of extremely damaging psychological censorship methods which are
designed to destroy their intended targets.
• Doubt interrupts
• Character assassination / reputation destruction
• Fake news / hate speech accusations
• Intimidation of personnel
Doubt interrupts
A “doubt interrupt” is an interruption of the user experience by the internet gatekeeper,
taking place immediately after an end user attempts to click on or share a URL from an
independent news website which has been targeted for censorship. Typically, a warning
message or pop-up will appear to the user, all for the purpose of creating doubt in the mind
of the user. Such messages may warn the user about the link in question containing “ma-
licious code” (even when it doesn’t) or consisting of “fake news” (a scurrilous, subjective
claim).
These “doubt interrupts” allow internet gatekeepers to suppress the sharing or discovery of
content without technically banning such content. It’s much like going grocery shopping
with a friend, and every time you reach for a product on the shelf, your friend says, “Oh
man, I don’t know about that one, I’d think twice before buying that.” The engineering of
doubt is a very effective psychological propaganda weapon now being widely deployed in
the censorship war.
Doubt interrupts rely on “trusted flaggers”—third party censors which are selected precise-
ly for their left-wing bias—to flag particular URLs or web domains for such interruption
47
warning messages. It is widely believed that Google may be about to integrate “doubt in-
terrupts” into the Chrome browser itself, which would flag websites as “untrusted” when a
user attempts to visit that site. The source of this list, of course, would be a biased, unethi-
cal, left-leaning organization such as the SPLC.
Character assassination / reputation

destruction
When outright censorship isn’t enough to destroy a targeted independent news publisher,
a psychological warfare tactic known as “character assassination” is often invoked to create
doubt in the minds of would-be followers.
Character assassination is frequently carried out by a combination of left-wing media mo-

nopolists (like CNN), late-night comedy shows ( Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, etc.)
and Wikipedia trolls, who populate the targeted Wikipedia page with false and defamato-
ry information targeting the mark.
The classic example of character assassination taking place today is the coordinated, wide-
spread character attack on Alex Jones, which has involved media monopolists literally at-
tempting to offer cash rewards to former employees and associates of Jones if they would
go public with any accusations, true or otherwise, which could be used to smear Jones.
The 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 if a small
retraction is later forced to be made, the original imagery of the accusation remains firmly
fixed in the minds of the public. This is precisely why character smear attempts are delib-
erately laced with very specific, vulgar imagery that is nearly impossible to erase from con-
sciousness, even if the original accusation is retracted.
The claim, for example, that “Alex Jones hires people who wear Nazi symbols 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 InfoWars studios many times and I’ve never seen a Nazi symbol
anywhere. But that didn’t stop the UK Daily Mail from making similarly outrageous and
false claims about InfoWars, all filled with truly bizarre, imaginary accusations.)
“Fake news” / “hate speech” accusations

The accusation of “fake news” or “hate speech” is fully covered elsewhere in this document.
The purpose of such accusations is to paint the targeted publisher with a dishonest reputa-
tion, calling into question everything they publish, even if the vast majority of their news
reporting is factual and reflective of high quality journalism standards.
Intimidation of personnel
Independent news publishers are further subjected to coordinate oppression attempts
through the intimidation of their staff members, including writers. Indy media writers are
routinely threatened, harassed and smeared by coordinated trolls which are empowered
by character assassination attacks, “fact check” smear campaigns and other tactics openly
pursued by media monopolists such as CNN.
For this reason, the vast majority of writers who publish on independent media websites
today use pen names for their own protection. Similarly, most email addresses used by
staffers who work for indy media publishers are also based on pen names rather than real
names. The importance of this protective strategy is further underscored by the increas-
ing frequency of “doxxing” attacks by hysterical Leftists, who routinely publish the names
and home addresses of their targeted enemies, often alongside direct calls for violence or
stalking behavior against such persons.
49
The future of the internet: Only one “official”

opinion will be allowed for each topic of
discussion
In essence, the combination of censorship, suppression, intimidation and other tactics will,
if not stopped, lead to a future internet where only one “official” opinion is allowed for any
given topic of discussion.
Any publishers deviating from that official opinion will be blacklisted, shadow banned or
otherwise disconnected from the internet and its marketplace of ideas.
The “official” opinion, of course, will be decided by the internet gatekeepers whose own
leaders and employees tend to represent the radical Left wing of politics, fronting increas-
ingly irrational and indefensible ideas as “truths” such as the absurd idea that any nation
which protects its own border is inherently racist and evil. Imagine surfing the internet in a
world where no dissenting views or original thoughts of any kind are tolerated by internet
gatekeepers, and where China-style “social scores” are tracked for individual users, grant-
ing them influence and power in accordance with how closely they promote the “official”
opinions of the gatekeepers. Astonishingly, Google, Facebook and other tech giants are
rapidly and deliberately maneuvering the online world into precisely such a dystopian trap,
all in the name of “equality” and “inclusiveness,” no less.
The monopolist media is, quite disturbingly, cheering it on.
50
Imagine surfing the web in America and receiving

a penalty to your “social score” for visiting
websites flagged as “untrusted” by the media
monopolists.
When CNN demands that Facebook deplatform InfoWars, what CNN is really asserting
is the idea that no opinions may be allowed to exist on the ‘net at all if they do not whole-
heartedly agree with CNN’s views, however absurd or deceptive they may be. This asser-
tion runs counter to the very freedom to think, and it smacks of a dangerous tilt toward au-
thoritarianism that’s now being strongly advocated among Left-leaning institutions which
are panicked about the fact 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 deplatformed is the online
equivalent of being executed, and that is precisely why CNN is calling for it... because it
is a form of extreme virtual violence which forever silences intended targets.
51
Summary of Part Five:

• Internet gatekeepers rely on a vast array of technical censorship tools to oppress, punish
or eliminate their intended targets (usually independent media websites).
• Some of the censorship tools operate covertly so that the very targets being censored
are not easily aware of the censorship taking place.
• Tech giants routinely outsource censorship tasks to extreme left-wing activist groups so
that responsibility for censorship decisions is shifted to a third party.
• Tech giants and media monopolists use a variety of psychological warfare tools to
augment their technical censorship tactics.
• If the extreme censorship now being carried out across the internet is not halted, the
future internet will only allow a single “official” opinion to be discussed or shared on
any given topic. No debate will be allowed, and no dissenting views will be tolerated.
52
Part Six: Legislative and

Regulatory Solutions to Techno-
Tyranny
Legislative and regulatory solutions for
halting the censorship of independent media
The United States government has a compelling interest in preserving the marketplace of
free ideas, even when those ideas are unpopular or consist of criticism against the govern-
ment itself.
To accomplish this goal, the United States Congress must act with urgent legislation,
and relevant regulators (FCC, FTC) must assert regulatory oversight that protects a
fair and free marketplace of ideas across the ‘net. We need, in other words, an “Internet
Freedom Act.”
Below, I list some suggestions of possible legislative or regulatory strategies that may be
worthy of further exploration for protecting the “online dignity” of Americans. In terms
of naming these laws, terms and phrases that might be useful include:
• Online Bill of Rights

• The Online Dignity Act
• The Right to Exist Online Act
• The Internet Freedom Act
• The Online Human Rights Act
Here are some suggested legislative and regulatory solutions that may be worthy of addi-
tional exploration:
53
1) DECLARE THE DOMINANT ONLINE PLATFORMS OF SPEECH TO

BE “PUBLIC COMMONS” COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE,
ESSENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION IN MODERN SOCIETY
When an online platform reaches over 50% market penetration in its appropriate sector
(such as social media, search, videos, etc.) it should be deemed an “essential service” for
the public at large, making it subject to laws and regulations that prohibit discriminatory
censorship.
2) OUTLAW THE CENSORING OF CONTENT BASED ON POLITICAL

VIEWS OR “UNPOPULAR” VIEWS ON SCIENCE, MEDICINE, HISTORY
AND RELIGION
As part of the legislative and regulatory reforms that are needed today, lawmakers should
specifically name content areas (subject matter) which are protected by those laws. Protected
topics must include politics, science, medicine, history, religion, sexuality and others.
3) REQUIRE INTERNET GATEKEEPERS TO OPEN ALL THEIR BLACK

BOXES AND PUBLISH THEIR RANKING ALGORITHMS
To halt the “voodoo” black box algorithm tweaking that artificially boosts left-wing news
publishers while punishing conservative or independent sites, dominant search engines,
video platforms and social media platforms must publicly disclose their ranking algo-
rithms, feed broadcast algorithms and other internal engines which determine public vis-
ibility of content.
4) REQUIRE TECH GIANTS TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THEIR CENSORSHIP,

DEPLATFORMING AND DOWN-RANKING CONTENT POLICIES
If tech giants are going to ban content creators for expressing conservative ideas, such
companies must publicly and unambiguously disclose that this is their policy. Rather than
hiding behind the false justifications of “hate speech” or “fake news,” tech giants must be
honest about naming the philosophies and ideas they are going to ban.
54
For example, YouTube must publicly state that it does not allow videos promoting CBD or
medicinal hemp. Facebook must state that pro-Trump speech will be banned. And Twitter
must state that if you issue death threats to people while being a conservative, you will be
banned, but if you issue death threats while being a liberal, such attacks will be openly
tolerated.
5) FINE INTERNET GATEKEEPERS FOR COMMITTING SELECTIVE,

POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED CENSORSHIP
Enact laws that allow the FTC or FCC to issue large fines when dominant tech giants
engage in politically-motivated censorship. Such fines should start at $1 billion and go up
from there.
6) INVOKE RICO ACT INDICTMENTS AND PROSECUTIONS AGAINST

FACEBOOK, ALPHABET AND OTHER INTERNET GATEKEEPERS
FOR WAGING MAFIA-STYLE CAMPAIGNS OF INTIMIDATION AND
OPPRESSION
On the law enforcement side, Facebook and other tech giants are already engaged in racke-
teering activities which could be prosecuted under existing law. This would, of course, first
require reestablishing the important of the rule of law at both the FBI and DOJ. Perhaps
Robert Mueller should drop the issue of Russian jokers and instead take up the investiga-
tion of American tech traitors.
7) SEEK CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST FACEBOOK, GOOGLE,

YOUTUBE AND TWITTER FOR INTERFERING IN THE 2018 ELECTIONS
AND COMMITTING WHAT ROBERT MUELLER CALLS A “CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA”
Robert Mueller charged a Russian company with attempting to defraud the United States
of America by running ads on Facebook. Yet what Facebook itself does to silence conser-
vative voices across America is a far more serious attempt to defraud 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 THAT ALLOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN CENSORED

FOR POLITICAL REASONS TO SUE THE DOMINANT ONLINE PLATFORMS
FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
One way to halt online censorship by tech giants is to make it financially unwise for them
to engage in such actions. This can be achieved by passing laws that allow the victims of
censorship—whose personal lives, professional lives and small businesses have been de-
stroyed—to sue the tech giants for damages.
9) REQUIRE INTERNET GATEKEEPERS TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT

SHADOW BANNING, CONTENT BANNING AND ACCOUNT BANNING
When online platforms engage in shadow banning, they must be transparent with content
creators about the extent of that ban. Instead of “secret” bans—which are equivalent to a
secret court—tech giants must be transparent about their algorithms, bans and content
down-ranking activities.
10) REQUIRE INTERNET GATEKEEPERS TO FOLLOW A TRANSPARENT

DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE THAT ALLOWS CONTENT CREATORS TO
APPEAL CENSORSHIP DECISIONS
Content creators are currently denied due process by tech giants, who secretly decide pun-
ishments completely outside anything resembling due process. This must change, and a
process must be created that allows content creators to present evidence in their defense,
achieve “discovery” of claims against them, appeal censorship decisions and pursue other
customary rules of legal representation. No more secret Google courts.
56
11) SET UP AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION COMMISSION THAT

ISSUES BINDING DECISIONS ON CENSORSHIP GRIEVANCES BROUGHT
BY INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS AND CONTENT CREATORS
Another worthy idea is to create an independent arbitration commission that hears all cen-
sorship / deplatforming / shadow banning cases, and to which Google, Facebook, YouTube
and other tech giants must confer authority. Content creators would have the right to par-
ticipate in the proceedings while offering evidence in their defense. Costs for arbitration
would be paid by the loser.
Under this system, if a tech giant wished to ban someone, they would have to file a case
with the third party arbitration organization which would alert the user to the case so
that they could appear in their defense. No bans could be carried out without the deci-
sion authority of the arbitration entity, and all decisions would be openly published for
public review.
A similar procedure is currently in place regarding domain name intellectual property

disputes.
12) OUTLAW EMAIL ISPs FROM INTERFERING WITH THE DELIVERY OF

EMAIL THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY END USERS
Just as it is currently illegal for individuals or organizations to interfere with the delivery of
the U.S. mail, it should also be illegal for ISPs (such as gmail) to interfere with the delivery
of email that is requested by the end user. The ongoing interference of email newsletter
delivery is an insidious form of selective censorship.
13) BREAK UP GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND OTHER TECH

GIANTS UNDER ANTITRUST LEGISLATION
If the U.S. government has the authority to break up Standard Oil and AT&T, it also has
the authority to break up monopolies in the online space. The extreme, monopolistic
57
abuse of power now routinely demonstrated by Google, Facebook and other tech giants is
providing clear justification for antitrust legal action that would end the monopolies and
decentralize the tech gatekeepers.
End user actions to break the tech giants’

monopolies
End users also play a role in taking back their power from tech monopolists.
End users may:
1) Migrate to alternative platforms - Seek alternatives to Google, YouTube, Facebook and

other dominant tech giants.
2) Build alternative platforms - Construct and launch decentralized, non-corporate-con-

trolled platforms which respect freedom of expression.
Summary of Part Six:

• Legislative and regulatory solutions must be explored that can reel in the extreme
abuse of monopoly power currently being exploited by tech giants to censor voices
they don’t like.
• Existing law already provides justification under the RICO Act (racketeering) to crim-
inally indict executives of Google, Facebook and other tech giants.
• One possible solution to censorship might be the creation of an authoritative, indepen-
dent arbitration commission that would hear cases and issue binding decisions, all with
public oversight.
• End users may help fight back against tech monopolies by seeking out or building al-
ternative platforms.
58
About the Author

Mike Adams is one of the leading independent media publishers on the ‘net and operates
over 350 unique websites, including Trump.news, Censored.news and NaturalNews.com.
Having been repeatedly censored and outright banned by YouTube, Google and Facebook,
Adams recently launched a YouTube alternative video platform called REAL.video.
Adams is a laboratory scientist and is the co-author of a published science paper detailing
the discovery of a new method for the accurate quantitation of cannabinoid molecules
using mass spectrometry (http://www.chromatographyonline.com/liquid-chromatogra-
phy-time-flight-mass-spectrometry-cannabinoid-profiling-and-quantitation-hemp-oil).
He’s the author of Food Forensics (FoodForensics.com), a No. 1 Amazon.com science
book, and has received numerous awards for independent journalism.
Adams’ online store, HealthRangerStore.com, is a USDA-certified organic food manufac-

turing facility and fulfillment center based in Texas. Using mass spec laboratory analysis,
Adams manufactures and retails lab-verified foods, supplements, superfoods and personal
care products to a niche audience of health-conscious individuals who demand ultra-clean
products. Adams is a vocal critic of the pharmaceutical industry, Monsanto and the biotech
industry, government corruption and left-wing politics.
Having lived in Taiwan and South America, Adams is conversant in Mandarin Chinese
and Spanish languages. He is trained to fly small aircraft and has two patents to his name,
including a patent for the invention of an emergency dietary supplement that elimi-
nates radioactive cesium-137 from the body. That patent, called “Cesium Eliminator,”
was granted approval by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2016. (https://patents.
google.com/patent/US9526751B2/). Adams has publicly stated his willingness to donate
10,000kg of the formula to state or federal emergency responders in the case of a nuclear
event on U.S. soil.
Adams is also the inventor of the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box (FoodRising.org) and
59
used 3D CAD software to design the 3D-printed parts used in the system. Over a hundred
such systems were donated to schools across America to teach children food self-reliance.
Along with nearly every other prominent truth teller in America today, Adams has been
subjected to a well-funded and organized campaign of smears, defamation and charac-
ter assassination consisting of the deliberate publication of fabricated falsehoods intended
to destroy his reputation. Labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” Adams is actually a scientifi-
cally-trained analyst of reality and is well known for filming and broadcasting a “forensic
acoustics analysis” of the Las Vegas shooting which scientifically proved the existence of
multiple shooters through simple math and physics. That 29-minute science video, which
astonished the internet and humbled law enforcement investigators, is available at https://
vimeo.com/237467538
Adams resides in Texas and voted for President Trump. He currently has a show called
“Counterthink” which airs each week on the InfoWars network (InfoWars.com). He recent-
ly produced a firearms combat video series called “REAL Self-Defense,” featuring firearms
instructors from the U.S. Navy SEALS and United States Marines (https://www.natural-
news.com/2018-07-13-real-video-launches-self-defense-how-to-gun-training-series-fea-
turing-former-navy-seal-and-u-s-marine-combat-instructor.html). Adams supports local
law enforcement, veterans and the United States military. He is highly trained in hand-to-
hand combat, tactical combat firearms deployment and long-range target shooting.
Adams is available to brief members of Congress or Trump administration staffers on any

subject covered in this report. He has no interest in speaking to media monopolists and
will not respond to such contact requests.

The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Censorship Master Plan Decoded

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CENSORSHIP

By Mike Adams, founder, NaturalNews.com, Censored.news, REAL.video, Counterthink.

Part Three: The Fallacy of “Fake News”...............................................................................24

Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure of News Consumption..................................36

Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to Techno-Tyranny........................................53

About the Author.................................................................................................................59

Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the

Part One: The Societal Cost of

Dominant online platforms have become

In a society that has roundly rejected the

The central deception of tech giants

Facebook baited users for over a decade,

Online censorship is de facto denial of the

Dominant online platforms have become the

The political Left applauds the stripping

The overriding internal justification for such an egregious—even malicious—justification

What is his definition of “properly educated?” For starters, he is a Chinese communist

Facebook has begun to deplatform

Collectively Conscious (915K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

Healthy Food House (3.4M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

Health Awareness (2.5M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

I Want to Be 100% Organic (700K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

Organic Health (230K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018

Conscious Life News (1.1M follower) – Deleted on June 5th, 2018

Summary of Part One:

Part Two: The Fight for Reality

Maintaining monopoly control over cultural

consumers. According to establishment news propagandists, they never insert themselves

Because the very premise of “news” claimed by

Irrefutable truths of news gathering and

1) All news institutions make mistakes from time to time

Leftists assign to themselves the imaginary

This self-delusion by media monopolists is extremely dangerous to society. It is part of what

News monopolists assert that they alone possess

Accepting the corrections of independent news organizations, of course, would eliminate

A short list of Washington Post news fakery can be found at:

Summary of Part Two

Part Three: The Fallacy of

The key goal of media monopolists is to thrust

In other words, the real purpose of the centrally-controlled news establishment is to

The highest priority of news monopolists is

Continued compliance to false mainstream

Alex Jones is targeted under the accusation of

Reiterated, it takes constant repetition of disinformation to lull news consumers into a

How media monopolists transform a lie into

Technically, CO2 should be called the “greening molecule,” as higher concentrations of

The fallacy of “hate speech” and left-wing

“Hate speech” is being defined by those who

The political Left has abandoned any

Leftists in America no longer believe that open

that if your speech makes somebody—anybody—feel offended, you must be engaged in

Whoever has the power to define “hate” and use

Summary of Part Three:

• “Hate speech” is a fictitious fabrication invoked by the authoritarian Left to silence

Part Four: Decentralization

Direct URLs and Apps

Public Platforms / Social Media

the James Damore lawsuit against Google (https://www.newstarget.com/2018-01-17-19-

Summary of Part Four:

• Additionally, non-technical censorship methods such as reputation assassination and