This Is The Worst Purge Of Conservative Voices In The History Of The Internet

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

In recent weeks, we have witnessed an unprecedented social media crackdown on conservative voices.  YouTube’s war with Alex Jones has gotten the most attention, but literally hundreds of conservative content creators have had their accounts penalized, suspended or deleted by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants.  There appears to be a coordinated effort to target conservative viewpoints, because similar voices on the left are not receiving equal treatment.  If I win my race for Congress on May 15th, I am going to make fighting this sort of censorship one of my top priorities once I get to Washington.

How would you feel if you spent years creating videos and building up a subscriber base only to have all of that work wiped out in a single moment by a leftist YouTube moderator?

Sadly, that is precisely what is happening to dozens upon dozens of conservatives right now…

Writing for, Julia Alexander noted that, “Whenever YouTube institutes a tougher moderation stance, a common debate emerges over censorship—especially from notable conservative voices.”

Specifically, she explained, “Questions over YouTube’s moderators and the power they hold were raised this week after notable conservative pundits, gun advocates, conspiracy channels and other right-wing voices received community strikes or were locked out of their channels. Creators who are affected by lockouts, strikes and suspensions are referring to it as the ‘YouTube Purge,’ claiming that YouTube is purging all right-wing or pro-gun content. The move follows the company’s attempt to clamp down on dangerous content following the Parkland shooting.”

One of the most disturbing examples of censorship was what happened to the Health Ranger channel.  Mike Adams is a personal friend, and I am extremely upset about what YouTube has done to him

As we reported over the weekend, YouTube terminated the entire Health Ranger video channel on Saturday, wiping out over 1,700 videos and approximately 350K+ subscribers. This was done, of course, as part of the YouTube left-wing PURGE now being carried out against non-establishment speakers who are being targeted for political reasons.

YouTube’s censorship rampage also wiped out all my videos on the donkeys I rescued, the range-free chickens I raise and even the beautiful ice crystals I captured on video over the winter. In its censorship sweep, YouTube is obliterating thousands of videos without cause, violating the civil rights of informative internet users and functioning as a criminal techno-cartel.

There is absolutely no reason for YouTube to do this.  Mike Adams has literally helped millions of people through his work, and I am urging all of my readers to contact YouTube and demand that they restore his channel immediately.

Of course YouTube is not the only one that is cracking down on conservative voices.  Here are a few examples of what Facebook has been doing

Young Cons: This very popular conservative news site had millions of daily readers during the recent election, and the site received nearly all its traffic from Facebook (Lesson: Never put all your marketing eggs in one basket). Facebook has been increasingly censoring Young Cons stories since 2016; now the site struggles mightily and regularly switches domains in order to maintain traffic. At one point the former GOP VP nominee and Alaska governor’s website was serving up stories to her four million Facebook followers, but she, too, had to begin switching domains in order to maintain traffic.

Right Wing News: This site grew to massive proportions over the past few years, in large part thanks to its meteoric popularity on Facebook. During one week in 2015, the site’s Facebook page reached 133 million people. The site was driving about the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in the U.S. But since 2016 Facebook began blocking traffic to the site; its owner, John Hawkins, announced he would shut it down in January (it’s still online but the content is not regularly updated).

Independent Journal Review: This, too, was a large conservative news and information source, but because it was overly reliant on Facebook traffic, the site had to terminate a number of its employees last week, leaving the fate of the Millennial-focused site in doubt.

And Twitter has been censoring conservatives as well.

In particular, Twitter seems to really dislike pro-life activists

Pro-life group Live Action cried foul in 2017 after Twitter demanded it delete pro-life images, such as fetal ultrasounds, from its Twitter feed and website before allowing the group to run advertisements. Live Action refused the request.

Another pro-life group, the Susan B. Anthony List, was barred in October from running a video advertisement, because it used the phrase “killing babies” to refer to abortion. “No advertiser is permitted to use the phrase ‘killing babies,’” Twitter told the group.

That same month, Twitter blocked an advertisement by Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign for Senate in Tennessee. Twitter objected to one line Blackburn said: “I’m 100% pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts –thank God.”

If you don’t stand up when you see others being censored, then please don’t complain when the social media giants censor you as well.  I think that Dr. Michael Brown made this point exceedingly well in his most recent article

First they came for Infowars, and I did not speak out—because I found them offensive.

Then they came for Geller and Spencer, and I did not speak out—because I found them obnoxious.

Then they came for Prager U, and I did not speak out—because I found them opinionated.

Then they came for a host of others, and I did not speak out—because I have my own life to live.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is why we need good liberty-minded people to run for office all over the nation.

*  *  *

If we do not fight back, this sort of oppression is only going to get worse.  Right at this moment I am engaged in an extremely tight race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and if you want me to go to Washington and defend our free speech rights, please consider making a contribution because we desperately need it right now.

In the entire history of the Internet, we have never seen this sort of a coordinated purge before.

The left believes that they are going to win, but we are definitely not going to allow that to happen.

Michael Snyder is a pro-Trump candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District.  If you would like to help him win on May 15th, you can donate online, by Paypal or by sending a check made out to “Michael Snyder for Congress” to P.O. Box 1136 – Bonners Ferry, ID 83805.  To learn more, please visit


Juggernaut x2 JimmyJones Wed, 03/07/2018 - 11:37 Permalink

The ACLU and SPLC are jewish Bolshevik organizations. There are a few uppity local HS girls that want to get classmates to participate in the Gun Control Walkout and the superintendent has said that he will discipline anyone that walks out of class and what-do-you-know- the ACLU is jumping into the fray to encourage the students to do so. Of course the local media is giving the girl and the state ACLU director (who looks like he is straight out of "Fiddler On the Roof") plenty of airtime to spew their nonsense.

In reply to by JimmyJones

EuroPox spanish inquisition Wed, 03/07/2018 - 11:45 Permalink

This video has not yet been taken down... but it probably will be soon!

The extent of state protection of pedophiles is staggering.  This video, recorded by the son of a former Lithuanian MP and judge, exposes Lithuania.  It needs to go viral.

Please also sign the petition and click the activation link in the email you receive afterwards, or it won't be counted.

In reply to by spanish inquisition

Solio EuroPox Wed, 03/07/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

This is beyond horrifying. What do the people do when the judge/court works to protect pedophiles? And, the Praetorian Guard that was there while the authorities took away the young girl from her protectors, wasn't there a man/father in the very large group that saw how wrong this all was and might step in to stop it? If he did he would be risking his life. So, I guess the answer is no.

In reply to by EuroPox

RAT005 EuroPox Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:11 Permalink

It's a fundamental problem through out society/gov.  The left are activist almost by definition that are constantly pushing for their agenda of group think.  The right are individuals wanting independence so "marching" for their agenda is counter intuitive.  Thus the left slowly creeps into everyone's lives and never stops.  The right gets run over because individually they are always outnumbered and the majority (democracy) wins.  That's why the US is a Republic but the left never want to acknowledge that, they always refer to a democracy of majority rules.  The left is careful to construct their agenda to protect their majority.  The right is too independent and splits their agenda into too many factions.

In reply to by EuroPox

FireBrander FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:37 Permalink

YouTube does NOT have to host anyone's content; and you don't have to patronage YouTube.

"Free Market" bitches; grab those bootstraps and start your own video hosting website

Down votes? Are you fucking serious?

So you want to FORCE a privately owned company to host and air your opinions?

Holy fuck, seriously?

What's next? Forcing Fox News to rebroadcast PBS "News Hour"?

Here's an idea, why don't we force Fox News to allot 10 minutes of every hour for CNN to air it's opinion of the facts..."Fair & Balanced" and all that...

Stupid is off the charts...

In reply to by FireBrander

Mr... Robot FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 19:44 Permalink

Google, You Tube, and all it's subsidiaries aren't a private corp. Google was developed by the CIA with our tax $. What for? To track and create data bases for all us sheeple. They are a front for the deepstate. Why do you think they bought Boston Dynamics, that works for DARPA? Yes they sold it, after they "fixed it". They are obligated to abide by the first amendment. At least until they are destroyed.  I wish. No company has had more power in human history.

In reply to by FireBrander

Westcoastliberal FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

You're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle....Google is a MONOPOLY and must be broken up!  Under existing law (Sherman anti-trust act, et al) same law that forced the breakup of AT&T, Google should have been broken into a million pieces long ago.

And may I remind you until the break up of AT&T, you could NOT buy your own equipment and hook it up to the phone network!  You were forced to rent at exorbitant prices.  Example: $500 a month for a "Code-A-Phone" (answering machine).

Strange how competition changes things!

And you DO know Google owns Youtube....right?

In reply to by FireBrander

sleigher FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:06 Permalink

The private company argument tends to hold much less water when they are carrying political speech that helps candidates and decides to silence 1 side of the discussion.  If they can silence conservative content then they should not be allowed to host any political content.  It is tipping into anti-trust territory.  

In reply to by FireBrander

RAT005 sleigher Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

Plus it shouldn't evolve into something so one sided.  That is really dirty.  If it starts out with the name LeftViewersWin, then not hosting right side stuff is obvious.  When after many years of building a right side channel where it is fully encouraged, it is destroyed by the left, that is just too easy to be viewed as malicious.  Thus the years building that content somewhere else never happened.  It was a trap and that is wrong.  Can I host a party on private property, get all of the alcohol drinkers that I despise lined up around the half barrel and then have them arrested for trespassing?

Another example more respecting YouTube can choose their own fate:  If a video was published and approved under the terms of service of the day, it shouldn't later be subject to removal based on the YouTube (owner) random new opinion.  Think of it as grandfathering in old stuff.  If YouTube announces, no more such and such....well it isn't perfect but at least it's honest.  Still the problem that a channel with many viewers lives based on new content and preventing right agenda content is pretty close to saying I'm not going to allow blacks to live in my apartment building.  It's a private building, but the owner doesn't have the right to discriminate.  So the left is hiding behind "bullying", "Violent", etc. criminal classifications to censor (discriminate) what is displayed.

In reply to by sleigher

DollarMenu sleigher Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:02 Permalink

You know, instead of using the brand "YouTube",

you should be using the brand "Do No Evil Google",

the owner.

Time for anti-trust action.

Just like Standard Oil, just like AT&T,

it is too big to go on as is.

Nothing 'free market' about single source.

And yes, switch to BitChute or DTube or other while the breakup is done,

 try to maintain the conversations/opinions while this goes on.

In reply to by sleigher

MrAToZ sleigher Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:20 Permalink

Exactly right to the anti-trust argument. Why not ban all political content on YouTube? I would still go to it for a giggle. I don't rely on them to educate me (which is what they want... sans conservative views). The liberal cannot argue coherently so they need everything to reflect them. Ever talk to one? Its like talking to a Scientologist or a Nazi Youth. Look behind their eyes, nothing going on back there. Just a hold your breath till I'm blue in the face, table pounding knuckle dragging non-thinker.

If they don't ban it all then sue them till it hurts.

In reply to by sleigher

Singelguy FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 18:41 Permalink

And at the rate they are going, they are going to kill that business, just like they are killing Hollywood and the NFL. You are right. This is a free market and people are free to take their business elsewhere. Competition against YouTube will grow and when it hits critical mass, there will be a mass exodus from YouTube and then they can continue to censor all they want. At that point, it won’t matter because no one will notice and no one will care. 

In reply to by FireBrander

directaction FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:06 Permalink

"The Federale," possibly the best hard-hitting blog published by a federal agent addressing the corruption in the way the US handles immigration matters, was pulled by Google a few days ago after fifteen years of near-daily reporting.

Many here are no doubt regular readers of this blog and its articles.

It was regularly published on WND, VDare and elsewhere. "The Federale" and its entire archive of detailed articles has been erased.   

In reply to by FireBrander

Md4 FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

I respectfully disagree.

The baker didn't refuse service while using publicly-owned equipment.

The internet, on which these platforms exist, isn't owned by anyone.

Indeed, it's been a new frontier in humanity's experience. No one quite knew/knows how it should be managed. Which is why, up to now, these online entities have been "trusted" to self-manage. THIS country, if you're going to leverage a public pathway to provide content on or access to that pathway, YOU MAY NOT ABROGATE The FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS of the individual when doing so. Especially, the right of free speech.

Indeed, the prog left has risen in the propagation of their Bolshevik ideology, precisely as a result of unrestrained access to the same unowned pathway, using the same providers who NOW cry foul, when opposing free speech would make the SAME use of them.

If these platforms want a REAL regulator...

...that can be arranged.

Or these platforms can create their own, parallel (private) internet.

In reply to by FireBrander

FireBrander Md4 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:35 Permalink

leverage a public pathway


The internet is open to being "leveraged" by anyone capable of leveraging it. The internet is open to private, public, academic, business, government, LIBERALS & CONSERVATIVES use...YouTube is PRIVATE...they can operate as they please.

So, if the owners of YouTube wanted to convert to a 100% Cat Video website, that shouldn't be allowed because it's unfair to Dog lovers?

In reply to by Md4

Md4 FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 17:15 Permalink

If the access platforms are going to assume the role of a regulator in the public interest, they need to act like one.


Interfering in the expression of the same civil liberties alternative viewpoints have, on the basis of an ideological difference with that speech, is unconstitutional and un-American.

A contest of ideas can occur on a battlefield just as easily as it can on any internet platform.


Perhaps it's high time it did.

In reply to by FireBrander

blindfaith stinkopower Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:20 Permalink

Yes did the NAZI youth groups.  And when they got rid of the voices that didn't agree with them, forcefully,, they started on the Germans who didn't say what the NAZI wished them to say and believe.

So the radicle left are acting just like the NAZI did.  The radicle social suicide leftists sites will lean more and more left until even a Soros liberal is suspect and dangerous.

This is how it happens, are you 'liberal'?  Then you are next on the list or you do and say as you are told....period.  Disobey and you loose your job, shit is planted on your computer and phone, your info data is suddenly everywhere and you can't get it back or under control.  Yes, indeed, you are creating your own virus which will take you life not just the 'conservative' ones.


Keep investing in these companies.  Keep buying products that are ad forced down your throats.  Enjoy.

In reply to by stinkopower

Clogheen midtowng Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:56 Permalink

More accurate to say that the leftists started with the Nazis. It was an exact reprise of what antifa are doing now. The Nazis kept having their meetings broken up by 'democrats' and that was the reason they founded the SA.  Which is not to justify subsequent actions by the Nazis. The problem is that when White nationalists are pushed too far there's liable to be an explosive reaction.

In reply to by midtowng

Moe Howard Clogheen Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:50 Permalink

Exactly right. The communists violently attacked public meetings by the NSDAP in beer halls and other venues in order to shut down speech they did not like. In self-defense, and in order to be able to continue to speak in public, they had to become street fighters and barroom brawlers, this led to the formation of the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment).

In reply to by Clogheen

delmar Jackson FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:15 Permalink

There is no "free market" when it comes to the dissemination of opinion that goes against the globalist narrative. Example: the latino supremacist anti white organization la Raza gets some funding from the federal government and endless tax breaks. there is no public funding for any alt right organizations and the IRS is programmed to shut down all conservative tax breaks.  The courts have decided in the past that if you are a public company providing a public forum for a long enough time you can not suddenly ban speech just because you do not agree with it. Jared Taylor is currently suing Twitter on just such legal grounds. It would be pointless to start a separate YouTube channel as it would be sabotaged by the usual provocateurs and attacked and shut down by the usual anti American radical judges who have a history of legislating from the bench.

In reply to by FireBrander

Moe Howard FireBrander Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:40 Permalink

I see a lot of down arrows for your comment, however, I agree with you 100%.

It is a hosting platform, the posted videos make money for Google.

I understand that the posters can make money also. I don't think they pay for the hosting. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would assume the posters have some sort of contract with youtube. If they don't, well, the posters are at the mercy of Google. Don't post videos there if you don't have a contract you can live with.

I am quite willing to go to other sites to view videos if I want to watch them. I have zero attachment to google's youtube.

I have noted that a couple of producers that I do watch with some occasional regularity have posted where to see their materials elsewhere. Smart move.


Just my personal opinion, but I would rather see video hosting be dispersed and not in the hands of one or two tech giants.

In reply to by FireBrander