President Trump correctly predicted France would see an increase in terror due to the migrant invasion – DECEMBER 1, 2017

An Infowars video that has been seen by nearly one million people, “Flashback: Trump Warned France of Terrorist Attack,” has now been censored by Facebook, saying it may show graphic violence or gore.

The site will not allow us to embed a playable version onto this page.

To watch the video click “Watch on Facebook” below and then click “Uncover Video” once on Facebook.

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 7.46.27 PM

As you can see in the screenshots below, when we click the options button on our video “This is MAGA” we have the option to embed and when we click the options button on the video “Flashback: Trump Warned France of Terrorist Attack,” the embed button does not appear.

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 7.34.53 PM

Today, in an extremely similar scenario, Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson had a viral video censored by YouTube.

Watson writes, “YouTube has censored a video critical of radical Islam in yet another example of how big websites are silencing more moderate voices and allowing extremists to fill the void. The video, entitled The Truth About Trump & Britain First, had received over 150,000 views before it was hidden behind an interstitial that reads, ‘The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.’ Users have to be signed in to watch the video, while comments, likes, and views have all been removed. This is a form of “limited state” soft censorship that prevents a video from being shared or going viral.”

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 7.36.45 PM

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 7.37.17 PM


Oh, the irony

Paul Joseph Watson | – NOVEMBER 27, 2017

Having ignored its own pedophile problem, where wannabe child molesters abused the platform to stalk children for months and potentially years, YouTube is now declaring links to “harmful” and “disturbing”.

Oh, the irony.

A user who attempted to link through to Infowars from a YouTube video on their phone sent us the following screenshot.

“Be careful! This site may be harmful,” states the warning.

“The site you are trying to visit ( may include malware, phising attempts, or disturbing content.”

The website then offers a “back to safety” option to prevent the user from accessing Infowars.

It’s pretty rich for YouTube to be setting itself up as the moral authority on “harmful” and “disturbing” content given that actual pedophiles have been abusing the platform to fulfil their depraved fantasies for months or even years with YouTube only just announcing it would take action.

Indeed, while the Google-owned platform has been censoring and de-monetizing “offensive” political content for the last six months, pedophiles were completely left alone.

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 7.46.53 PM

As the Daily Mail reports, “Searching for the phrase ‘how to have’ on YouTube brings up a list of disturbing auto-complete results,” including “how to have s*x with your kids” and “how to have s*x kids.”

Big companies are also pulling advertising from YouTube after it was revealed that up to 100,000 predatory accounts have been leaving indecent comments on videos showing children for at least a year.

Maybe YouTube should concentrate on cleaning its own house before declaring completely legitimate political content to be “harmful” or “disturbing”.


New McCarthyism sweeping Democratic Party overestimates minimal 2016 Russian social media activism

 | – NOVEMBER 14, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Advancing the Democratic Party’s new-found McCarthyism over the theme of “Russian Collusion,” Sen. Al Franken authored an op-ed piece in the Guardian last week asking for government censorship over Internet media content giants Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Franken appeared to be an over-reaction to testimony given by legal counsel for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 31, in which each of the Internet social media content giants reported statistics that showed minimal Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Yet, in the face of this concrete evidence, Franken seems determined to continue beating the New McCarthyism narrative advanced by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party supporters to explain away her devastating 2016 loss to Donald Trump.

Franken argued Hillary’s loss demanded government censorship over social media on the Internet.  He wrote the following:

Last week’s hearings demonstrated that these companies may not be up to the challenge that they’ve created for themselves. In some instances, it seems that they’ve failed to take commonsense precautions to prevent the spread of propaganda, misinformation, and hate speech.

In advancing his argument for government censorship, Franken asked the following rhetorical questions:

The platforms that big tech has designed may now be so large and unruly that we can’t trust the companies to get it right when they do start paying attention. If you have five million advertisers a month using your highly sophisticated, nearly instantaneous ad platform, can you ever really know who all of them are? Can you ever catch all the signals that would seem obvious to a pair of human eyes – for example, political ads that are paid for in rubles?

“Very ominous words”

Franken got immediate push-back from Michael Snyder, a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, who penned a rebuttal in

“These are very ominous words,” Snyder insisted.  “So precisely what would constitute ‘propaganda,’ ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate speech’?”

Snyder pushed back, suggesting Franken’s motive really involved a plan by hard-left Democrats to censor the speech of conservatives and libertarians on the Internet, so as to create a wide-open social media field in which even two-time losers like Hillary Clinton might win the presidency in 2020.

Snyder argued that government censorship constituted a serious risk to First Amendment free speech rights.  He wrote:

When you start regulating speech, you cross a very dangerous line.  There is a reason why our founders guaranteed us freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, because if we don’t have the freedom to say what we want then what do we really have left?

He argued the “government truth police” would lead us down the road to totalitarianism, a conclusion he judged is precisely what Franken wants.  Snyder continued:

During the presidential election, there was a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton’s health.  The mainstream media insisted that she was just fine, and they accused those of us in the alternative media that were questioning her health of engaging in “propaganda” and “misinformation”.  Well, it turns out that we now know that Clinton’s health was so bad that Donna Brazile was actually consideringreplacing the nominee, and so it was actually the mainstream media that was putting out “propaganda” and “misinformation.”

Snyder argued that elite leftists like Franken are actually scared of the free exchange of ideas because that gives people far too much control over their own destiny.

“Will everything that we do on the Internet have to be evaluated for ‘truthiness’ before it is allowed to be posted?” Snyder asked. “And who decides what the ‘truth’ actually is?”

Snyder concluded by asserting that he is a big believer in the marketplace of ideas.

“I have always been convinced that if everyone is allowed to openly share what they believe that the truth will win in the end,” he insisted.

What does the evidence show?

Perhaps Sen. Franken should review the evidence Facebook, Twitter, and Google presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as previously reported by

In their prepared testimony, each of the three social media companies attempted to estimate the extent of Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election cycle.


Facebook reported that the disinformation campaign associated with the Internet Research Agency, IRA, a Russian company located in St. Petersburg, spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 Facebook and Instragram ads between June 2015 and August 2017.

Facebook’s analysis also showed that the IRA accounts used ads to promote roughly 120 Facebook Pages they had set up, which in turn posted more than 80,000 pieces of content between January 2015 and August 2017.

Facebook estimated 11.4 million people in the United State saw at least one of these ads between 2015 and 2017.


 Twitter identified 36,746 accounts that generated automated, election-related content and had at least one of the characteristics we used to associate an account with Russia.

During the relevant period, those accounts generated approximately 1.4 million automated, election-related Tweets, which collectively received approximately 288 million impressions.

Twitter placed those numbers in context as follows:

  • The 36,746 automated accounts that we identified as Russian-linked and tweeting election-related content represent approximately one one-hundredth of a percent (0.012%) of the total accounts on Twitter at the time.
  •  The 1.4 million election-related Tweets that we identified through our retrospective review as generated by Russian-linked, automated accounts constituted less than three-quarters of a percent (0.74%) of the overall election-related Tweets on Twitter at the time.
  •  Those 1.4 million Tweets received only one-third of a percent (0.33%) of impressions on election-related Tweets. In the aggregate, automated, Russian-linked, election-related Tweets consistently underperformed in terms of impressions relative to their volume on the platform.

Twitter estimated that fewer than 5 percent of all 360 million accounts active during the election period was identified with a foreign nation-state actor.


Google attempted to distinguish itself from the other two websites, arguing that its search engine does not lead to the same viral content activity that distinguishes Facebook and Twitter.

Google reported finding only two accounts during the election cycle that appeared to be engaged in an activity associated with known or suspected government-backed entities.  These two accounts spent approximately $4,700 in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Google also reported finding 18 channels on YouTube with approximately 1,100 videos that were uploaded by individuals who we suspect are associated with this effort and that contained political content.

These videos mostly had low view counts, with just 3 percent having more than 5,000 views, constituting only forty-three hours of YouTube content. While this is a relatively small amount of content in that people watch over a billion hours of YouTube congtent a day, with 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute.


Salon claims Antifa ad in NYT is make-believe, but see for yourself

 | – NOVEMBER 2, 2017

But wait, there’s other mainstream outlets also claiming the NY Times ad never happened:

This is a case study in media manipulation, particularly how establishment journalists think you’re gullible and stupid.

Don’t trust the mainstream media. You’ll find the truth if you free your mind, trust yourself and actively look for the answers.


Let that sink in

 | – NOVEMBER 2, 2017

In an article defending Antifa, Newsweek suggests that it’s perfectly acceptable to “joke” about beheading white people.

Michael Edison Heyden writes about a Twitter user and VICE writer named @KrangTNelson who tweeted, “Can’t wait for November 4th when millions of antifa supersoldiers will behead all white parents and small business owners in the town square.”

Heyden downplays the threat as a “joke” that was meant to “mock” the baseless fears of elderly Fox News viewers that Antifa is planning mass civil unrest on November 4.

One wonders how Newsweek would have responded to a racist member of the “Alt-Right” making a “joke” about beheading black people?

Would they have dismissed it as harmless humor, or would they have demanded that person be banned by Twitter and investigated by the authorities?

Newsweek is also still claiming that an Antifa plot to stage a violent overthrow of the government or a civil war, starting November 4, is a “fake news story” invented by Infowars.

Really? The Revolutionary Communist Party website, an Antifa front, directly states that its plan, set to begin on November 4, is to “demand that the whole REGIME must go,” and that the end game is “Trump being removed” from office.


In the very next paragraph, the author states that one of the templates for this planned overthrow is contained in a book literally called The Coming Civil War.


So Antifa is directly threatening to use the template of civil war to overthrow the government, and somehow Newsweek turned that into a conspiracy theory invented by Infowars?

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend Hillary won the election. If an Alt-Right group headed by Richard Spencer wrote of its plan to violently overthrow the government using a book about inciting “civil war” as a template, would the media dismiss that as a “fake news story,” or would they report it as a genuine threat?

That’s not to say Antifa will be successful at all in starting a civil war – they will most likely just stage another ineffectual temper tantrum – but to claim Infowars made up the story is completely dishonest.

This is yet another example of how the media is running defense for Antifa, a group listed as a domestic terror outfit by the Department of Homeland Security, that has violently attacked innocent people on numerous occasions at protests across the country.



Americans are ready to lock her up

Jon Bowne | – OCTOBER 30, 2017

Congress and the Justice Department are in a Deep State gridlock. Regardless of the fact that sitting on their laps is mountains of evidence that could potentially put Hillary and Bill Clinton away for good.