Behaviorial Modification through Internet Censorship: The Behavioral Bottleneck
The censorship campaign that began in 2016 is not only about stifling dissent - it's about destroying Man's ability to dissent at all.
Before you start reading, please consider subscribing to me here on Substack, and also on Youtube, Bitchute, Rokfin, & Rumble! Your support is highly appreciated, and keeps the channels going:
Youtube | Bitchute | Rokfin | All my links in one place: LinkTree
After the Archive.org hack a few months ago, I’ve found myself reflecting on the state of the internet as it stands today and the increasingly rapid pace of online censorship. The Internet today and the Internet of 2016 seem like entirely different worlds now to the point where, as time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for me to imagine that we ever had access to the content that we did (and in the ways that we did) back in those days.
Many of you can probably look back at some period of time between 2016 and fondly remember spending hours watching conspiracy documentary after conspiracy documentary, each of which had tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of views. Youtube felt like it had true depth to it back then, even as recently as 2016 - it felt like, if you tried hard enough and used the right keywords, you could find anything. For those of you that were old enough to experience the Internet in its infancy, especially between the mid 1990s to early 2000s, you are likely feeling even more nostalgia about it than I am.
Since 2016, however, the Internet has changed dramatically, and many of us have experienced the consequences of those changes first hand, and paid for it dearly. Countless creators and truth-seekers have seen their channels erased, their profiles and accounts terminated, and years of dedication and hard work obliterated in the blink of an eye. The speed and scope of this shift were overwhelming; we were unprepared for the entire Establishment to turn against us so swiftly and decisively. As cynical as many of us were even back then, I don’t think we expected it to manifest in the way that it did.
Back then, people like us that were interested in fringe topics or deep politics were Information Outlaws in a digital world that didn’t want us anymore, in the same way that Arthur Morgan and the rest of Dutch van der Linde’s gang were “thieves in a world that don’t want us no more” in Red Dead Redemption 2 (I just reinstalled that game and I couldn’t help myself). The Internet wasn’t the Wild West anymore, and it was quickly becoming abundantly clear to us by that point. For many of us, that realization came with a ban hammer - a single catastrophic blow to everything we worked hard to create and share with the world for so many years. We were entering a new era of hyper-connectivity, and the days of the untamed Internet were ending. In its place, a system that shuts the algorithmic gates on disruptive truths was being erected, locking undesirable beliefs and opinions out of its domain. The information we hold is no longer welcome in this brave new digital age.
We’re all familiar with that, though. It has probably affected almost all of you reading this right now in one way or another, so let me get to the point of this write-up here, which is discussing the specific and nuanced mechanics that underpin the foundation of this ongoing campaign of censorship.
What is the ultimate goal of this escalating Internet censorship campaign? On the surface, the answer to that may appear to be a simple one: to stifle dissent and reduce the power and influence that competing narratives acquire. But this explanation, while true, doesn’t fully capture the subtle, insidious nature of the campaign. It’s only one dimension of the issue.
Stifling inconvenient opinions doesn’t only prevent the dissemination of such information, but it also reshapes the architecture of online discourse itself, ensuring that alternative narratives–even those based in verifiable facts–never gain the traction needed to challenge the dominance of Establishment narratives. Through this, the digital space is transformed from an open arena of competing ideas into a curated echo chamber where only those perspectives that align with institutional priorities are allowed to thrive.
This isn’t just suppression; it’s a calculated exercise in control over the boundaries of thought, at least within the digital domain that is the Internet. Problem is, as the world becomes more digitally intertwined, there is less of a barrier between the physical world and the digital world, which means those who became some of the first victims of this campaign have been locked out of an increasingly important and relevant aspect of human discourse and experience.
Take, for example, the treatment of the Covid-19 lab-leak theory. Early on, this hypothesis was dismissed and derided, and those who shared evidence in support of it were punished or silenced. Countless people, including doctors, were banned from various social media platforms for sharing information related to what the Establishment called misinformation, and referred to as a conspiracy theory.
In these instances, doctors that were formerly looked at as highly reputable in their fields were suddenly ejected from social media platforms with the rest of the “conspiracy theorists” and smeared as kooks dabbling in pseudoscience; at the drop of a hat, highly trusted figures were suddenly no better than unhinged conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. Since 2016, and especially since Covid-19, it has become painfully clear that there is only room for one overarching narrative, and that is the official one concocted by the Establishment. People’s accolades, awards, and lifelong careers spent keeping the public healthy were no longer valid if their opinions deviated from the Establishment’s manufactured consensus. In an instant, they became the enemy.
The message they were sending was clear.
Later, as the political climate surrounding Covid-19 shifted, the once-dismissed lab leak theory suddenly became a topic of legitimate debate, dominating headlines across major media outlets with new developments and revelations. Yet, the thousands of individuals who had lost their profiles, YouTube channels, and years of hard work for discussing the very same information now deemed acceptable received barely a mention. There was no “road to redemption”, no apology for being falsely banned and derided by the public. Naturally, the mainstream media and officials in the government were going to be the last ones to admit that they knowingly banned thousands of people sharing factual information well within the rules of the platforms the info was shared on.
If you weren’t aware of the history, you might be led to believe that such censorship had never occurred in the first place! This abrupt relaxation of digital restrictions on sensitive topics like the lab leak theory highlights perfectly how the censorship was less about scientific certainty and more about controlling public perception during a critical time.
This same pattern repeats itself with the many topics that have been given the label of “Russian disinformation” or “Russian propaganda”, which serves as the framework that has allowed the Establishment to build up the official narrative while simultaneously crushing others. Without this justification, such a sprawling censorship campaign could never have been embarked upon.
Despite how bad things have gotten in this realm in particular, we still live in a mostly free country, and because of that, the U.S. government and the slew of private interests that benefit and facilitate such censorship cannot be perceived as engaging in tyrannical behavior with their heavy handed censorship strategies; they need a justification that satisfies the mindless onlooker that bears witness to the mass digital obliteration and de-personing of online figures. Those people need a reason to feel good for what they’re seeing - to feel safe as a result of it. They need convincing rhetoric that justifies the victim’s erasure, so that they can feel morally justified in doing nothing to stop it.
When Trump was elected in 2016, that justification was the “Russian disinformation” concept. The Covid-19 “pandemic” served as a more specific justifier, targeting alternative narratives that undermine the messaging of public health and safety measures. Used in combination, however, proved most effective. Now, in 2024, we still have both of those justifications hanging over our heads: the “Russian disinformation” idea covers all narratives that go against the Establishment in times of peace and health, and the Covid-19 censorship has the back of the Establishment in times of health emergencies.
The first justification (Russian disinformation) targets the information we consume (which then has the effect of changing our beliefs and, down the road, our behaviors), and the second justification (Covid-19/Public health) targets our physical bodies and autonomy. The deployment of privacy or autonomy-breaching legislation using Russian disinformation as a justification allows for the control of thoughts and beliefs, while deploying the public health justification ensures that physical mobility can be limited, or chemical compounds ingested (or injected).
When we examine the mechanisms of these dual justifications—"Russian disinformation" and public health emergencies—we see a carefully orchestrated framework designed to permeate both the intangible and tangible realms of individual autonomy. The "Russian disinformation" narrative, rooted in concerns over election interference and propaganda, has evolved into a tool for regulating not just what information is accessible but also the parameters of acceptable thought itself.
By framing dissenting opinions or alternative perspectives as potential threats to national security or democratic stability, the Establishment has created an environment where questioning the narrative becomes tantamount to aligning with an enemy. This approach not only polices what individuals believe but also fosters a culture of self-censorship, as fear of ostracism or punishment compels many to align with the prevailing consensus, regardless of personal doubts.
On the other hand, the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated how crises of health can serve as powerful vehicles for enacting policies that would otherwise be met with widespread resistance. Public health narratives, particularly those emphasizing collective responsibility, are uniquely positioned to bypass traditional debates over bodily autonomy and individual rights. By invoking the need to "protect others," governments and institutions can implement measures that mandate physical compliance—be it through lockdowns, vaccine requirements, or other forms of control—under the guise of safeguarding public well-being.
This strategy not only limits physical freedom but also creates a precedent for the normalization of such interventions, effectively conditioning the population to accept similar mandates in the future without significant resistance. As we saw during Covid-19, the public was more than happy to completely ban the unvaccinated from nearly every aspect of life in the developed world in the name of preserving the health of the broader collective.
When used together, these justifications form a comprehensive apparatus of control that operates across both mental and physical dimensions. The "Russian disinformation" framework ensures ideological conformity by restricting access to unapproved information and delegitimizing alternative narratives, while the public health justification enables direct intervention in personal lives under the banner of collective safety. The interplay between these two mechanisms creates a society where both thoughts and actions are carefully modulated, leaving individuals with little room to question or resist without facing significant social or legal consequences.
From my perspective, it’s difficult to imagine why any additional justification would be necessary when these two narratives alone—if strategically exploited—are already more than capable of eroding personal freedoms and dismantling the foundations of autonomy and free thought. However, it’s safe to say that there could be an infinite amount of possible threats and fears that can be leveraged to sufficiently serve as justifications in the future. There will always be another virus, there will always be another bombing, there will always be another natural disaster - the possibilities are endless. Russian disinformation and public health concerns are just two of the justifications that dominate our information space as of right now.
From the perspective of the Establishment, Trump's 2016 election victory was orchestrated by a Russian disinformation campaign, and because they continue to frame him as a fascist intent on steering the country toward authoritarian ruin, it’s easy to understand why so many people might embrace censorship of him, his supporters, and his rhetoric without a second thought. To them, raising concerns about conservative voices being silenced online isn't about protecting free speech—it’s akin to defending or even enabling a modern-day Hitler.
This line of thinking isn’t born in a vacuum; it stems from nearly a decade (or more) of relentless conditioning, carefully orchestrated by Establishment-aligned media outlets, think tanks, and nonprofits that have hammered this narrative into the public psyche via the Internet.
For low-information citizens, the illusion of unity among these trusted institutions is profoundly persuasive; when every authoritative voice seems to echo the same message—that Trump is a threat, a fascist, and that rhetoric supporting his ideology must be eradicated—it becomes almost impossible for them to see the cracks in this manufactured consensus. They are unable to see the mechanisms behind the scenes that maintain this convincing illusion. This isn’t even about Trump, by the way, but any topic that the Establishment cares about, or wants reinforced or solidified culturally and socially.
The key to this campaign’s success relies entirely on the masses remaining ignorant about the true nature of what’s happening. They must remain thoroughly convinced that the information and ideas being banned are a clear and immediate threat to Democracy. They must be confident that their beliefs and opinions are the moral ones, and the opinions shared by dissenting voices are morally bankrupt, threatening, and dangerous. Malicious in nature.
When large swathes of the population truly believe that Trump was installed by Putin and is nothing more than a compromised puppet working on behalf of a formidable adversary, they perceive this threat as existential, which therein justifies the most heinous behavior directed toward those that argue anything different. It not only justifies this heinous behavior, but it tricks the public into actually celebrating it. At that point, people are no longer only reacting to those that do not conform, but permitted to hunt them down, like animals.
So, while it’s accurate to say that the ultimate goal of this ongoing censorship campaign is to stifle Russian disinformation and misinformation that, according to the Establishment, aims to destabilize U.S. Democracy, it would be more accurate to say that that’s only dimension of the goal. See, when you crush opposing viewpoints and alternative information sets, it doesn’t just eliminate it from the Internet (or drastically reduce its visibility and reach), but it reshapes how society perceives dissent itself.
By branding certain ideas as dangerous, fringe, or harmful, it conditions people to see censorship as a necessary, even noble, safeguard against chaos. Over time, this erodes the public’s ability—and willingness—to question authority or critically evaluate competing perspectives. What emerges is a sanitized information ecosystem where intellectual diversity is suffocated, and the absence of dissenting voices creates an illusion of consensus that reinforces the new status quo.
The long-term consequences of this shift are profound. By narrowing the range of acceptable discourse online, the Establishment consolidates not just political and social power but also control over the very frameworks through which reality is understood. The digital space was once heralded as a bastion of free expression and a tool for democratizing information, but has now been transformed into a mechanism for enforcing conformity and generating false consensus on critical issues that affect all of us.
This is not simply about silencing voices; it is about engineering a future in which dissent is not just suppressed but rendered unthinkable, a relic of a past where freedom of thought was more than just an illusion.
If society continues on this trajectory, the cost will not merely be the loss of free speech but the gradual erosion of the intellectual foundations upon which a truly democratic society depends. The eradication of one’s cognitive ability to question authority; the destruction of the part of the brain—whatever that might be—that is responsible for that voice in our heads that wonders “are we sure this is a good idea?” or “is there really no better way?” or “what evidence do you have for that claim?”
The true nature of the overarching plan fueling the ongoing censorship campaign is not merely to stifle dissent. The true objective of it all is mass behavioral modification.
Suppression of inconvenient truths isn’t the destination - it’s just one stop on a long-winding road to the true destination, which is the comprehensive transformation of societal values, beliefs, and behaviors to align with the establishment’s preferred worldview. This shift is achieved not through overt mandates or authoritarian decrees but through subtle manipulation of narratives that convince well-meaning individuals that it is their moral duty to support a sanitized information ecosystem. To support a non-sanitized information ecosystem would be akin to supporting those who wish to destroy our Democracy.
By framing dissent as a threat to democracy or a force of division, institutions with historical authority validate these narratives, presenting them as absolute truths, effectively becoming a self-confirming feedback loop. The genuine intentions of ordinary citizens are strategically exploited, turning them into unwitting enforcers of conformity under the guise of combating fascism and safeguarding stability. This system convinces the citizens that they are making objective decisions based on the available evidence, only because they have eliminated any and all means to access the evidence that contradicts the ones they have access to.
Through emotional resonance and fear-based appeals, the establishment cultivates a society that voluntarily polices itself, rejecting dissent not out of malice but from a manipulated sense of civic duty. As a result of this effort, everybody is an activist, and everybody is a militant. Yet, even those who align with the Establishment’s approved narratives are not entirely immune; they, too, can unintentionally disseminate information deemed harmful, leaving no one fully protected from the collective fury of mass outrage and the relentless push to “save Democracy” at any cost.
Through this invisible influence, the digital landscape is transformed into a controlled space where only approved voices can thrive, not because the rules and regulations say so or because a particular set of information is forbidden from being discussed there, but because the new digital framework of moderation that has been erected by the Establishment to usher in this new worldview rewards those that fall in line with visibility, virality, and the privilege of engaging with the rest of the world online without obstruction, while those who stray from the prescribed norms are systematically deprioritized or outright banned. Deemed “anti-social” or dangerous to democracy, their voices are quietly stifled, ensuring the digital stage becomes a platform for only the most ideologically aligned participants.
In this meticulously engineered system, dissent is not only suppressed but methodically erased from the public sphere, as the boundaries of acceptable discourse are gradually tightened by those in power. This narrowing of permissible thought is no accident; it is an intentional design, executed with such precision that it feels organic, as though societal norms are naturally evolving rather than being actively manipulated.
For those unaware of the mechanisms at work, the digital world appears untouched—an effortlessly curated experience where only approved perspectives and narratives populate their feeds. To them, the absence of controversial or dissenting content is not suspicious but affirming, as it aligns with their understanding of credibility and merit. “It’s not on my feed or trending on XYZ social media platform because it must be fake” or “because it must be lacking evidence”.
In reality, this seamless illusion masks a calculated effort to suppress alternative viewpoints before they can take root. Through algorithmic manipulation, dissenting voices are systematically deprived of reach and visibility, ensuring their messages never gain the traction needed to enter the broader cultural conversation, or even be given fair, objective consideration by the masses who deserve the opportunity. As a result, the lack of opposing perspectives creates the false impression that such ideas either do not exist or are inherently invalid. This reinforces a self-sustaining loop where users trust the filtered information presented to them, further insulating themselves from anything that challenges the carefully constructed consensus they believe to be genuine and organically formed.
Meanwhile, those labeled as dissenters—conspiracy theorists, skeptics, and individuals with unapproved opinions—continue to post content, some of them remaining entirely oblivious to the fact that their visibility has been neutralized. Even those of us who are fully aware of the full scope of the censorship campaign we’re facing and abreast of all available evidence proving its existence are still largely left in the dark regarding the true machinations of the strategic workings behind the scene. We are not in the boardroom meetings, we are not included in the email chains, we’re not at the social events the perpetrators attend - we can only understand the nature of this campaign through the information that is permitted to be released, ironically enough. Thus, even those of us that have found a way to survive in this new and constricted digital landscape remain largely unaware of the many additional ways the information we share and our ability to engage with the world online is being combatted by the system.
As the situation deepens, countless individuals using the Internet remain oblivious to the fact that their posts, opinions, and ideas are being quietly funneled into digital isolation by intricate algorithms designed to limit their visibility. The voices that were once part of the broader discourse now echo in carefully maintained voids where their messages fail to reach the wider public or achieve the momentum necessary to challenge the dominant narratives.
In a world without these constraints, the merit and accuracy of this information would have had a chance to be fairly considered, and potentially gain enough traction to achieve virality and thus mainstream acknowledgment, triggering a discussion on it. However, when up against these constraints, the lack of engagement with content covering these inconvenient talking points (or the fact that it has been throttled to near-invisibility) leads people to believe that the wider public has no genuine interest in the information, and therefore no reason to continue trying to educate them about it. Others might be led to believing that it must be that people simply don’t like them, or think that your content is just straight up trash.
Meanwhile, there is a market for it; it’s just that the information you’re putting out there is being artificially throttled, and its dissemination carefully re-routed into reservoirs that are impossible to stumble upon even when doomscrolling.
This is not accomplished through overt bans or conspicuous censorship; instead, it relies on subtle mechanisms of control that create a dual reality: a visible, sanitized public sphere where approved ideas thrive and an unseen, shadowed domain where dissenting viewpoints are effectively buried. It is censorship without the appearance of silencing, a tactic that mirrors historical attempts to crush competing ideologies while leveraging tools of modernity that render resistance almost impossible.
Unlike the tyrants of the past, who relied on brute force, coercion, and fear to suppress dissent, the architects of today’s digital age wield tools far more insidious and effective. For the first time in history, technological advancement has enabled those in power to manipulate the flow of information on an unprecedented scale, crafting an environment where their dominance is not only unchallenged but unnoticed. Through algorithmic filtering, behavioral tracking, and the subtle amplification of certain viewpoints, they can stifle dissent while simultaneously shaping the thoughts and behaviors of their subjects.
This quiet engineering of belief systems eliminates the need for overt authoritarian tactics, replacing them with the illusion of individual autonomy and free will. There is no need to crush dissenting views if, in one generation, you can simply obliterate Man’s ability to generate those dissenting views at their origin point by simply adjusting the part of our minds that generates them.
In this new paradigm, people are nudged—rather than forced—into alignment with the dominant narrative, all while remaining unaware that they’re being nudged at all. The algorithms work in the shadows, reinforcing the sense that the views they adopt are their own, born of organic reflection and personal choice, rather than the calculated manipulation of their information environment.
This digital dictatorship does not require the visible brutality of past regimes; instead, it thrives on its invisibility, reshaping society’s collective consciousness without drawing attention to the mechanics behind it. The controlled belief systems that emerge seem to evolve naturally, convincing people that their shifts in perspective are genuine rather than induced. Those that are aligned with the Establishment will point out this shift, but view it as evidence of Humanity’s maturation.
What sets this era apart is the unprecedented reach and subtlety of these mechanisms. Never before have those in power had the capacity to exert influence across the globe, modulating entire populations' understanding of reality with such precision and invisibility. The result is a system that not only suppresses dissent but also preempts it by gradually eroding the mental frameworks that might give rise to resistance in the first place. By shaping the narratives people consume and the interactions they experience, the tyrants of today ensure that opposition is not only marginalized but often entirely unformed.
The culmination of this system is the creation of what might be called a "Behavioral Bottleneck," a carefully engineered mechanism that subtly filters out individuals who display anti-Establishment tendencies by amplifying the behaviors and beliefs that align with the prevailing narrative. This isn’t achieved through direct confrontation or overt suppression but rather through an ecosystem where pro-Establishment sentiments are rewarded with visibility, validation, and the promise of success. Over time, people adapt their online behavior to mirror this pathway, avoiding the perceived failures of those who challenge the status quo—a path that appears, to them, as futile, meritless, and even dangerous to the broader social order.
On top of that, as the erasure of this anti-Establishment information continues, people will have less and less information to work with even if they did choose to engage in an objective examination of the opposing viewpoint. Even if they did open their minds to consider these views, all avenues to access the information are eradicated, and the information that dissenters use as evidence to support their beliefs that is accessible is sparse, or specifically manipulated to serve as disinformation, and turn the reader right back to the pro-Establishment narrative. They will have been stripped of their right to even consider anything else other than what’s fed to them by the prevailing authorities. This system punishes the truly curious people of our society; those that truly want to learn.
For those who navigate this digital reality unaware of the manipulations at play, the choice seems self-evident: why support dissenting views that never seem to gain traction or legitimacy? Why support views that seem to be held by an extreme minority? To the uncritical observer, there is no visible evidence to suggest that these alternative ideas hold any truth or value because the very mechanisms designed to shape their behavior also render such evidence invisible, or extremely difficult to find. The anti-Establishment voices are buried so effectively that their absence feels natural, reinforcing the perception that opposing views are either irrelevant or inherently flawed. How can one consider an idea that doesn’t exist?
Nowadays, it seems that any content creator in this space that does manage to rise up and acquire some degree of mainstream acknowledgement is compromised in some way, or just an awful representation of the average person who possess these inconvenient opinions and genuinely care about them; those of us who simply want to have a discussion about it with those on the other side of the aisle.
In such a system, there is no genuine motivation to stray from the designated path; for the average individual, aligning with the Establishment feels not only logical but essential, as they believe their choices stem from independent reasoning rather than a carefully manipulated reality. The truth, however, lies in the subtle design of their environment—a framework so meticulously crafted that it narrows their perception, guiding them toward conclusions that appear rational and inevitable. It's not that their beliefs are inherently flawed; rather, the validity of their conclusions is artificially constructed by an unseen influence that selectively curates the information they encounter.
In essence, their "correctness" is a manufactured outcome, shaped by the systematic suppression or invisibility of evidence that might challenge the Establishment’s position. They hold the "right" views, not because those views emerge naturally from unfiltered reality, but because an invisible hand has engineered the conditions to make alternative perspectives appear irrelevant or non-existent. This illusion of consensus robs them of the opportunity to ask a vital question: "If my conclusions were predetermined by those in power, why was it so important to them that I believe this?" Without this awareness, they unknowingly become participants in a rigged system, where the illusion of free thought conceals a carefully orchestrated campaign of control.
This is the nature of the hellscape being erected around us, and it’s a trap.
It is through this system being erected around us right now that the mass modification of Man’s behavior will be achieved, and it won’t only alter our behavior, but will be changed irreparably until eventually, it is standardized. Beliefs and opinions are mass produced and disseminated. It’s not that opposing beliefs are simply being stifled, it’s that the ability for a human being to generate a dissenting thought in its essence will have been destroyed completely.
Follow me here on Substack and over on the video platforms listed at the start of this article to help preserve freedom of speech online!
Youtube | Bitchute | Rokfin | All my links in one place: LinkTree