Good post. I think you are 100% correct. I've noticed similar examples of controlled opposition content creators leaving in an obvious misrepresentation/lie. Alex Jones said that "Hillary is literally slaughtering children"

What he meant was that her policies/actions in Haiti or Some other place have the effect of lots of children dying. He says the way he does because he’s a hype machine to get you sucked in to watching more. But on the whole its highly deceitful to present it this way.

So then, what are you saying we should understand about Alex? He’s a stooge for leftists to chase moderates away from believing right wing propaganda? If so, im skeptical.

Alex Jones is a government-sponsored actor whose job is be a gatekeeper for conspiracy theorists, steering them away from certain topics, all while making conspiracy theorists look like crazy right wingers to outsiders. Some helpful links and discussion on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8so18w/im_sorry_but_alex_jones_is_an_actor/

She may literally kill children, but we don't have much direct evidence for that. Though there is evidence that she may have a cannibalism disease

Stop using your brain. :p

yeah i hear that critical thinking can be bad for your health.

Some diagnosis are terminal. :/

Interesting, how often has Snopes used YourNewsWire when determining the viability of stories?

Intersting for sure, FoxNews was referenced 5x as much, so you have to wonder if they're all honeypots

True; I remember a time when that site was linked here... a lot.

I think Snopes uses them a lot is because they publish a lot of lies

https://old.reddit.com/domain/yournewswire.com/

On reddit the site is all over rightwing subs. r/conspiracy is one of the top subs that submits yournewswire links as well.

Isn't the point of Snopes to factcheck news sites? There should be nothing wrong with Snopes pointing to yournewswire as a source of fake news with how much they are used in various places on the net to fit a narrative.

Interesting theory. Makes sense to me. YourNewsWire is generally kind of a dumpster fire and the logic checks out that it could be controlled opposition.

I believe that (I'd have to try and search my old posts to find it) YourNewsWire is owned by someone who used to work for David Icke.

At one point we discussed banning the domain here but again, this was a long time ago and I can't remember why it wasn't but during my investigation, I think, that it turned out to be in some way related to Icke.

The creator of YourNewsWire was a television producer for BBC and used to help manage David Icke's website.

There we go. Thanks

HC connected or not, he's a liberal. And judging by the pattern we are seeing, most of them rape women and children.

Not to mention both Prince Andrews, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are all buddies with Epstein. Don't think it's just elites in DC, just disgusting rich fucks from everywhere.

Lol, did you see that Epstein sign guy start an AMA and never come back to answer any questions?

I think I saw it here yesterday. It was pretty funny.

There are multiple pictures of them together at Mar-A-Lago. The full quote from Trump was "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy" so sounds like they were buddies to me (I never said bff lol it's not 2005). The next was "He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side". Doesn't sound like he's calling him out as much as complimenting him on the fact. Can't miss the fact young girls saying they were recruited at Mar A Lago by Epstein

You forgot Epstein flew on Trumps plane.

I know Epstein used to stay at Mar-a-lago, but Trump banned him for sexually assaulting an underage girl at the club.

Trump "allegedly" banned him from the club in 1999. If he banned him in 1999, why do we have pictures of Epstein in 2000 at Mar-A-Lago with Trump?

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/from-left-american-real-estate-developer-donald-trump-and-news-photo/700334384#from-left-american-real-estate-developer-donald-trump-and-his-former-picture-id700334384

Looks like February 12, 2000 is the date that photo was added to getty images

This is absolutely not true. The date on the image is the date the photo was shot and not added to gettyimages.com. Unless you believe gettyimages.com existed in 1956 and added this photo of Elvis on their website in 1956:

https://www.gettyimages.at/license/74290860

Do you know where it says anywhere that Trump banned Epstein in 1999?

It's in the video you linked below. Just to point out. Trump never said that he banned Epstein. The only source for that claim is the book "Filthy Rich" from Jeffrey Patterson, where he claims that Trump banned Epstein from Mar-A-Lago in 1999. That's it.

WHY IN THE WORLD would he say things like this (0:06) in public?

Because he likes to stir shit up.

Mutually assured destruction kind of thing?

Probably. Do you really think that it's only a coincidence that Epstein had 10 different telephone numbers of Trump in his little black book?

Regardless though, this is still argument still seems like a huge reach. If Trump were involved, WHY IN THE WORLD would he say things like this (0:06) in public?????

Because he also said his crowd size was the largest, made a fake Time magazine with him on it, Trump steaks (bad), Trump vodka (bad), said he couldn’t release his tax returns because he was audited (audit doesn’t matter), said he’d release his tax returns if he won (he didn’t), etc…

You’re thinking is right. I don’t know when people will stop team cheerleading for their preferred party and realize it’s all smoke and lights.

pattern we are seeing

most are liberals

I partly agree Bahwney Fwank ran an underage prostitution ring out of his house but got off Scott free. Hastert got a slap on the wrist, there is no justice in this. Guy was head of some fight child abuse NGO in New York so I am sure he has ties to the Clinton machine and the Democrats in general.

You're doing it all wrong. The typical game plan around here is to accuse specific liberals of pedophilia so that, eventually, the reader can "form their own opinion" that all liberals are pedophiles. When you go and make a blanket statement like this you give away the whole game plan. Take this crap back over to t_d where it belongs.

Snopes will write up a "Fact Check", citing YourNewsWire and their claims that he is a Clinton campaign official, just so that they can put a big red "FALSE" at the top of the page

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning yet but... They're going to say what is false?

There's a claim he was a Clinton campaign official and they'll prove this to be false by citing a website that confirms it?

This is a really well prepared proposition. I don’t particularly like or dislike any of the outlets involved, but I’m very interested to see how this plays out. We need more posts like this. If shit must get political, this is the way to do it.

I thought it was generally acknowledged that yournewswire was at least yellow journalism at best and disinfo and propaganda at worst.

I'm a Trump-optimist Q Anon weirdo and even I don't trust yournewswire. Not everything they publish is necessarily false, but they are more like click-bait in my opinion. They have very low standards and publish whatever will grab attention.

TLDR: YNW invents the idea that this guy worked for Clinton, so that Snopes can debunk the idea. So that they can use Snopes to discredit people who cite YNW.

This tactic would also discredit YNW besides. I fail to see how such a strategy would be in any way effective or useful. Don’t believe this.

Sounds like well-planned disinfo sounds completely feasible to me. Just like one of Alex Jones' jobs is to make conspiracy theorists look crazy, they could be taking true stories and deliberately adding falsehoods. To casual onlookers, it discredits the whole story, kind of like the people claiming mini-nukes and hologram planes on 9/11.

I've seen YourNewsWire pull this kind of crap (and worse) countless times. Unless they link to an outside article / interview don't trust them

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Glad to see T(u)MoR has weighed in! LOL.

I've also noticed Snopes loves to setup and knock down their own strawman arguments and it seems like they have scummy tabloid partners that help. This seems like a prime situation to repeat that play.

FBI agent John D'Souza said that the tack the intelligence agencies is taking has changed. In the past, they tried to suppress information. Now (due to the internet) they realize that they can't suppress it. So their new strategy is to flood the news cycle with so much fake news that the truth gets lost in the noise.

I mean, this stuff goes back to the CIA's Operation Mockingbird, where they infiltrated the media. (The Church Commission in the 1970s outed all the front companies that the CIA owned that ran magazines, newspapers, TV affiliates, etc. One of the most famous is a CIA shell company called "Capital Cities". The CEO of Capital Cities was William Casey, who then went on to head the CIA. Capital Cities bought Disney, which owns networks like ABC (and ABC News).)

The new tack (as traditional legacy media is losing its influence) is to target prominent bloggers for bribery. Freedom of Information Act documents recently demonstrated that the intelligence agencies are making lists of the most popular Youtubers and internet personalities. Money that traditionally flowed to TV and magazines is now being channeled to bribe online personalities (and venues like Reddit).

I myself noticed a sea change in this subreddit, for example, after the 2016 election.

Reddit, as an organization, is getting dark money from the Shadow Government.

Just as mass-media has been receiving for decades.

They're paid to give the appearance of a grassroots, open forum; while, in reality, they're literally PAID to promote certain talking-points and narratives.

Once mass media institutions cease being reliant on the public for their funds (and are instead reliant on government cash), they cease to be responsive to the public.

It's why the legacy media can promote narratives that are deeply unpopular with the people, and they signal their indifference to protest.

One example is the thoroughgoing unpopularity of, say, something like [I'm just pulling this out of the ether] but mixed-race relationships. Less than 5% of the public engages in them. As recently as 2014, a Cheerio's commercial was the first ad to draw an uproar when it portrayed a mixed-race couple and their biracial child. Wherever you stand on the issue, the reality is: The public is NOT where the elites are on the topic.

So while less than 5% of actual Americans engage in mixed-race relationships, you've suddenly seen this concerted effort to promote the phenomenon on TV commercials, where a full 1/3rd of all ads now feature mixed-race couples.

Let me repeat: This phenomenon was unusual as recently as 2014.

Yet by 2018, it went from 1 Cheerio's commercial, to every third commercial.

Clearly, the public isn't into the social engineering campaign. Yet it's being promoted anyway.

This would NOT happen in a media that "gives the public what they want". It happens in a media immune from the public because they're getting dark money from the Deep State.

And that's just one manifestation of what I'm talking about. There are countless other examples of stuff the public isn't into, yet its promoted aggressively by the elites. (Transgenderism would be another.)

It gives a lie to the claim that "TV just provides what the public wants."

The reality is far, far darker.

"The media isn't there to reflect public opinion; it's there to shape it." --Walter Cronkite

Throwaway for obvious reasons.

I agree some of the mods are legit. Some have been here for a long time and you can tell they want what is best for this place, but there are some bad apples. The others may not be aware that they are bad apples, or maybe they can't prove it.

Just as an example, a user posted a video of Rand Paul discussing indefinite detention without trial, which is against the Bill of Rights, and it was removed for being political.

"Removed. This is not appropriate content for this sub. This is /r/conspiracy. Our topics are ancient pyramids, bigfoot, JFK, 9/11...etc...this ain't it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8t74rn/rand_paul_slaughters_lindsey_graham_to_his_face/?st=jiz3c5ky&sh=5c26e32c

http://archive.is/t62ra

That mod also muted the user in mod mail, so the other mods may not have even realized this happened.

Yeah this sub went to shit during the election, it wasn't til all the Bernie hubbub started getting real loud that this sub basically changed overnight to the trash it is now.

I don’t recommend reading it, but there is this: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1075016/download

My issue with this is that you're basically employing a "no TRUE news site would write something so stupid", when... not an attempt to insult the entire userbase, but there's a whole lot of right-wing and conspiracy people who do believe dumb shit like this on a daily basis.

What makes you think a fringe right-wing news site WOULDN'T use one picture of a guy as proof he was a Clinton staffer? That shit has been and will keep happening forever. And it definitely does more harm than good. Less people are going to look up and debunk it than believe it wholesale.

The basis of your argument seems to be "we're not that stupid!", well. Even if you're not, there definitely people in your community who are.

Your News Wire needs to be shut down. They are the worst sort of fake news that makes all other alternative news websites look bad.

They run their operation through this Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/thepeoplesvoicetv/

There's one way to find out if they are controlled opposition: If everyone here goes to their Facebook page and reports all of their posts, and nothing happens, then they are protected by Facebook.

Facebook is supposed to be shutting down fake news pages yet they seem to be thriving while high quality pages are having their reach severely cut, with some even being deleted altogether.

If Facebook continues to support them, then I think you're theory that they are controlled opposition is correct.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I'm a Trump-optimist Q Anon weirdo and even I don't trust yournewswire. Not everything they publish is necessarily false, but they are more like click-bait in my opinion. They have very low standards and publish whatever will grab attention.