The fallacy of “hate speech”
07/16/2018 // Mike Adams // Views

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

One of the pillars of the internal justifications for banning political speech is the invocation 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 transgenderism 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 conservatives 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.


"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 expresses 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 surprisingly, 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 reasonable 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.

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 independent 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 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.


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:


Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is the founding editor of, a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on called "Food Forensics"), an environmental scientist, a patent holder for a cesium radioactive isotope elimination invention, a multiple award winner for outstanding journalism, a science news publisher and influential commentator on topics ranging from science and medicine to culture and politics.

Mike Adams also serves as the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation.

In his laboratory research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

Take Action:
Support Natural News by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
App Store
Android App
eTrust Pro Certified

This site is part of the Natural News Network © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Privacy | Terms All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
Natural News uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.