>>1408766

"Jones for a lot of people is considered one of "us". What if he isn't? Is he dividing "us""

Alex Jones was never, from the time of his inception and to now, a part of 'you'. He was and always is 'controlled opposition'. He's a walking discredit movement.

Think about it: Alex Jones, the man who is so fat he could easily have a 'mysterious heart attack' and die (without being noticed) is some vocal rant-aholic who screams at people in a crazy-ass, discrediting kind of way.

Contrast that with the example Q brought up of the woman who questioned the 9/11 narrative. Dead.

How about the guy investigating the satanic cult some months ago who also ended up mysteriously dead? Or any other actual conspiracy theorist or researcher?

And yet, there Alex Jones sits, making profits, getting fatter, and key point here - not dying. And he does not strike me as being smart, so I can't chalk it up to survival.

Good conspiracy theorists are either extremely smart and still alive, or end up dead.

Alex Jones is not dead and is not smart. He's controlled opposition. Operation Mockingbird but for the conspiracy theorists. Designed to be the 'faceplate' of conspiracy theory where we get painted as 'lunatic raving loudmouths who scream a lot' and 'yell communist' at everything (which is very American-centric, I might add).

Proof Alex Jones is controlled op:

1) Profits easily (truth tellers always encounter resistance and legal threats, finances disappear)

2) Still alive (truth tellers often get death threats - I can attest - or killed - I've seen others get killed under dubious circumstances)

3) Very 'acted' with the appearance of being 'emotionally unstable' - most conspiracy theorists are rational, level headed people (they only 'sound' like they're 'raving' if you're reading a post and haven't actually met them in person).

4) Strawman arguments/poorly presented arguments that are often very easy to disprove or debunk (and extremely gloss over the actual facts that would arguably make the argument very strong)

5) Lack of critical judgement in analysing given datasets.

6) Heavy reliance on criticism/skeptism (AKA 'opinion pieces') as a compensation for a total lack of research (see 4 and 5 above)

7) Uses appeals to what conspiracy theorists 'mostly agree with' to 'lumpsum' attack other theories (IE conflating bad or poorly formed theories as being part of the set, EG flat earth, to discredit other better founded theories, EG evidence of 9/11 being an intel operation/inside job).

There's plenty of others. Remember, if Alex Jones has advertisers, he falls under the same problem YouTube has - so-called 'advertiser friendliness'.

>>1467659

"I cannot stress how much the media has to be exposed for what they are."

"There needs to be exposure - How do we go about getting that information? It exists. "

It's not about 'how to get that information', that part is easy. So easy that Project Veritas does it on a daily basis as a sort of independent journalism investigation charity.

The real question is 'how do your disseminate that information in a way people can trust'?

Because the media are a 'well oiled' propaganda machine. They're not going to publish the information that leads to their own downfall. They even appear to have a gentleman's agreement not to publish dirt on each other (with exception for when they get into a direct scrap with one another, EG Fox versus CNN).

For example, you'll never see any of the media outlets publishing the Project Veritas' 'nothing burger' discovery of the New York Times, or if you do; it's heavily distorted and buried (Project Veritas often finds itself at the focus of slanderous or dishonest information).

Any countering outlet or an honest outlet gets attacked and berated. Anything not of the lying media is supposedly 'fake news'. Anything on YouTube (prior to it's censorship - something they all egged on for) is 'terrorism' or 'alt-right' or 'trolls'. If it's Twitter or Facebook it's supposedly 'Russian bots' (despite numerous instances involving real people who are clearly not bots).

The issue isn't getting dirt on them - that shit is easy, they don't even hide it.

It's getting the dirt to the people who need to know it, it's getting it out there via uncensored platforms that can resist attacks and government legislation (read: abusive censorship practices like 'blackbox AI' that censors content - see Thesera May's craziness), and in a way the people can easily access and trust, that is content neutral and isn't subject to the same level of editorial bias.

Even if we knocked out the media outlets now, another abusive monopoly or media outlet would simply take their place.

Two options: develop an alternative, or legislate, legislate, legislate.

People need to develop the BitTorrent equal to chat, or even video (and no, not BitChute: that's FBI).

>>1640558

I'm not saying to 'off' him (you misread me).

My whole point is he hasn't been offed already because he's a part of them. Real truthers, conspiracy theorists etc often end up dead (especially vehicular 'accidents' of some sort: Michael Hastings, or suicides: Dr David Kelly, for example) or threatened in some way.

Never would I propose death as a general solution to anything, with the very extreme exception being possibly sick and twisted pedophiles (to be fair, keeping them alive in jail with the full exposure of people knowing them as pedos/rapists strikes me as more of a punishment, especially when 'prison justice' kicks in).