Propaganda and psychological methods of censoring independent news publishers

This is a partial reprinting of “The Censorship Master Plan Decoded,” available at this link (PDF).

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

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 “malicious 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 precisely for their left-wing bias — to flag particular URLs or web domains for such interruption warning messages. It is widely believed that Google may be about to integrate “doubt interrupts” 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, unethical, 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 monopolists (like CNN), late-night comedy shows (Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, etc.) and Wikipedia trolls, who populate the targeted Wikipedia page with false and defamatory information targeting the mark.

The classic example of character assassination taking place today is the coordinated, widespread character attack on Alex Jones, which has involved media monopolists literally attempting to offer cash rewards to 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 deliberately laced with very specific, vulgar imagery that is nearly impossible to erase from consciousness, 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 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 reputation, 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 increasing 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.

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 increasingly 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, granting 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.

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 wholeheartedly agree with CNN’s views, however absurd or deceptive they may be. This assertion runs counter to the very freedom to think, and it smacks of a dangerous tilt toward authoritarianism 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.

This report reprint continues at this article link.

Find the full report at this link (PDF).

See the video presentation of this report by Mike Adams at the following link:

comments powered by Disqus