Here’s a fun trick – go to your favorite Alt-Right, New Right, White Nationalist, Race Realist, White Right whatever site. Go through their articles for the last few years. Read what some of them were saying about ISIS – ISIL – “Islamic State” whichever.
Now read this article, and read between the lines. What are the elements of the headline?
ISIS – imaginary battle – never existed – Twitter hoax.
Now, this is not a “conspiracy theory” because it’s published in a “legitimate” media organ. Instead, it’s a “hoax” and that fooled “ISIS supporters” from “around the world” on “Twitter.”
On the other hand, if Hipster Racist were to suggest that media coverage of “ISIS” included “faking pictures” and “Photoshopp[ing] an image” we’d call it a “crazy conspiracy theory.” That is, until The Independent publishes a story about a “hoax.”
As Mr Mahmoud’s “breaking news” gained traction with re-tweets, other Iraqis joined in the fun by faking pictures that both Isis and militia supporters believed were real.
Now, if some random Iraqi that is “critical of the Iraqi government” but “hates ISIS” can fool a worldwide contingent of … “ISIS supporters” … on Twitter … which are regularly reported on in the “real news” as representative of the pro-ISIS faction of Muslims worldwide …
… then the actual participants in whatever real wars on going on can – and DO – their own “photoshopping” and “faking pictures.”
In fact, it would be job number ONE for any competent psy-ops staffer.
Yet the “best and brightest” of the White Right, Alt-Right, New Right, and White Nationalists pretend to take war propaganda at face value. Not a single photograph is questioned as legitimate, not a single video timestamp can ever be discounted, not a single “Tweet” from an official “Twitter account” can ever be taken as anything other than sincere, with varying shades of truthiness.
Because to even suggest otherwise would be to “get involved in conspiracy theories.”
Lots of lefties in the Bush administration thought that “dissidents” like Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky were really speaking “truth to power” and were actually so “controversial” they were “censored” from the mainstream. Over time, it was obvious that, far from being “dissidents” Goodman and Chomsky were, in fact, an important part of the propaganda of the power structure, and would censor stories and issues that were really important and really controversial.
I’ve only been reading the WN sites for about five years, but you can already tell which “alt right” sites are not, in fact, “dissidents” at all and far from “speaking truth to power” they merely enforce one end of the acceptable spectrum.