It's not my opinion. I don't think it's true. That is what the world see's (that link is just one of a thousand hit pieces on AJ’s particular brand of crazy). Any article on him talks about how crazy he is. He talks about truly whacked out shit all the time and he is quoted on it all the time. Suggesting that statement is controversial in the broader public view is just being willfully blind.
You say he discredits the truth so nobody will believe it, yet millions credit him with waking them up.
I am looking at what actually happens as a result of his actions. It isn't about what I want. I don’t think AJ is a lunatic at all. I think he is a really smart and gifted actor. What I am talking about is the actual effect he has.
Yes, after people start to question their reality, they get a lot of good evidence from Alex Jones. Then they go around trying to red pill their friends. Then they show their friends Alex Jones’ work, or they quote AJ, or they talk about some of the things he says that don’t have any evidential support (as supplied by him, or in general). Then their friends think that Alex Jones is a lunatic, because he acts like a lunatic, and sounds like a lunatic, and says things attributed to lunacy (the human body is just an alien antenna e.g.). Then all the good evidence he shows gets discredited by association with his crazy talk. The most important thing to appreciate here is that by "crazy talk" I specifically mean those statements he makes that are not believable (even if they are true) for which he shows no supporting evidence. Such statements make a person look crazy. Even if they are making statements of the most profound truth, it doesn't appear that way. I suggest that is intentional.
What actually happens is that Alex Jones “wakes up” very few people. The millions that find him, find him because they are already questioning their reality and he is the largest voice speaking the truth. When they find him, they can’t use him as a source, because he has no credibility. His lack of credibility is due not to the really good reports he puts out, but to the other things he says that act to discredit him, and thus the truth.
The truth needs an outlet. If that outlet is not believable by someone who already doesn’t believe, then the truth remains hidden. If, on the other hand, you do already believe something, and AJ is giving further good information on it, you will be a fan of AJ, thus separating you from the other people you wish to show “the truth” to by your association to AJ, either by quoting him, showing his work, or just sounding like him. What actually happens is that he creates division between the truth, those that want to talk about the truth (Truthers) and the rest of society. He helps to create boxes for people to sort themselves in to, thus the division. Whether that is intentional or not, that is what actually happens. That is the AJ effect.
He is not alone. All Truther leaders do the same thing. They all talk about whacked out shit (which may or may not be true) and provide no evidence for it. They also all have provable or stated direct ties to the C_A.
Also, you have no evidence they are or ever were on the CIA payroll.
Alex Jones explicitly stated that his father (and other members of his family) was on the C_A payroll. True or not, it is a stated direct connection to the Agency. Q explicitly stated that AJ was a Mossad agent as shown in the link above. Mossad and the C_A are the same agency.
Tucker Carlson spoke at a rally on his campus about the C_A recruiters there, defending them. He then later is explicitly stated as having gone through the application process for the C_A. He is then stated as having been rejected.
Immediately afterwards, his father, who is easily proven to be a member of the Cabal, is appointed the head of the Voice of America by George H. W. Bush and the Carlson family moves from California to D.C.. VoA is the C_A’s media front and Tucker Carlson's father became the head of a major arm of the C_A right after Tucker applied to the C_A. George H. W. Bush, who personally appointed Mr. Carlson to head an important C_A organization right after his son applies to the C_A, is the former head of the C_A. GHWB was the head of the C_A during the Church Committee hearings and ran interference for the C_A there when the Senate investigation outed the C_A as having hundreds of American media talking heads as their agents.
When his father took over the VoA, Tucker then immediately began working as a “editor and fact checker” for the Heritage Foundation, which is itself just a front organization for the C_A. “Fact checkers” are one of the C_A’s primary tools for controlling information. Tucker then became a media star, basically instantly. In his early career he ran interference for the C_A regarding Iran-Contra, one of the most blatant C_A corruption scandals ever (that made it to the public), that no one ever talks about or knows the details of.
You find patterns like this everywhere. Numerous threads leading directly to the C_A/Cabal in the biggest names in media, on all sides, going back to their origin stories. This has always been the case. What are the odds that that pattern exists in all the big names purely by chance? I suggest somewhere in the range of zero, especially given the explicit statements made by numerous people (including the Church Committee) that all big media people work for the C_A in some fashion. It isn’t that the C_A subverts top level media stars, it’s that you can’t make it big unless you are already working for them. All evidence suggests that the media is completely controlled.
Now those may not be enough pieces of evidence to convince you, and that's fair, but it's just a start, and it is supporting evidence for the assertions, so not "no evidence."
Q said some disinfo is necessary. The Q movement couldn’t be the “Alex Movement,” therefore, that disinfo was necessary.
Citing the "some disinfo is necessary" statement to cover every thing you don't want to be true is not using reason, but justifying belief. Look at the actual facts contained within the Q statements. Look at all the evidence of connections between AJ and Mossad/C_A. Look. Don’t be a True Believer. That will not help you uncover the scope of the deception.
The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”
And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.
The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”
Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).
Not a good foundation to build your argument on
Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).
Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.
Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.
Association is not the same as guilt.
Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.
You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.
"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.
It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)
Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.
It's not my opinion. I don't think it's true. That is what the world see's (that link is just one of a thousand hit pieces on AJ’s particular brand of crazy). Any article on him talks about how crazy he is. He talks about truly whacked out shit all the time and he is quoted on it all the time. Suggesting that statement is controversial in the broader public view is just being willfully blind.
I am looking at what actually happens as a result of his actions. It isn't about what I want. I don’t think AJ is a lunatic at all. I think he is a really smart and gifted actor. What I am talking about is the actual effect he has.
Yes, after people start to question their reality, they get a lot of good evidence from Alex Jones. Then they go around trying to red pill their friends. Then they show their friends Alex Jones’ work, or they quote AJ, or they talk about some of the things he says that don’t have any evidential support (as supplied by him, or in general). Then their friends think that Alex Jones is a lunatic, because he acts like a lunatic, and sounds like a lunatic, and says things attributed to lunacy (the human body is just an alien antenna e.g.). Then all the good evidence he shows gets discredited by association with his crazy talk. The most important thing to appreciate here is that by "crazy talk" I specifically mean those statements he makes that are not believable (even if they are true) for which he shows no supporting evidence. Such statements make a person look crazy. Even if they are making statements of the most profound truth, it doesn't appear that way. I suggest that is intentional.
What actually happens is that Alex Jones “wakes up” very few people. The millions that find him, find him because they are already questioning their reality and he is the largest voice speaking the truth. When they find him, they can’t use him as a source, because he has no credibility. His lack of credibility is due not to the really good reports he puts out, but to the other things he says that act to discredit him, and thus the truth.
The truth needs an outlet. If that outlet is not believable by someone who already doesn’t believe, then the truth remains hidden. If, on the other hand, you do already believe something, and AJ is giving further good information on it, you will be a fan of AJ, thus separating you from the other people you wish to show “the truth” to by your association to AJ, either by quoting him, showing his work, or just sounding like him. What actually happens is that he creates division between the truth, those that want to talk about the truth (Truthers) and the rest of society. He helps to create boxes for people to sort themselves in to, thus the division. Whether that is intentional or not, that is what actually happens. That is the AJ effect.
It also happens to be how the C_A is noted to control information in their takeover of other countries (see the details of Operation PBSUCCESS e.g.).
He is not alone. All Truther leaders do the same thing. They all talk about whacked out shit (which may or may not be true) and provide no evidence for it. They also all have provable or stated direct ties to the C_A.
Alex Jones explicitly stated that his father (and other members of his family) was on the C_A payroll. True or not, it is a stated direct connection to the Agency. Q explicitly stated that AJ was a Mossad agent as shown in the link above. Mossad and the C_A are the same agency.
Tucker Carlson spoke at a rally on his campus about the C_A recruiters there, defending them. He then later is explicitly stated as having gone through the application process for the C_A. He is then stated as having been rejected.
Immediately afterwards, his father, who is easily proven to be a member of the Cabal, is appointed the head of the Voice of America by George H. W. Bush and the Carlson family moves from California to D.C.. VoA is the C_A’s media front and Tucker Carlson's father became the head of a major arm of the C_A right after Tucker applied to the C_A. George H. W. Bush, who personally appointed Mr. Carlson to head an important C_A organization right after his son applies to the C_A, is the former head of the C_A. GHWB was the head of the C_A during the Church Committee hearings and ran interference for the C_A there when the Senate investigation outed the C_A as having hundreds of American media talking heads as their agents.
When his father took over the VoA, Tucker then immediately began working as a “editor and fact checker” for the Heritage Foundation, which is itself just a front organization for the C_A. “Fact checkers” are one of the C_A’s primary tools for controlling information. Tucker then became a media star, basically instantly. In his early career he ran interference for the C_A regarding Iran-Contra, one of the most blatant C_A corruption scandals ever (that made it to the public), that no one ever talks about or knows the details of.
You find patterns like this everywhere. Numerous threads leading directly to the C_A/Cabal in the biggest names in media, on all sides, going back to their origin stories. This has always been the case. What are the odds that that pattern exists in all the big names purely by chance? I suggest somewhere in the range of zero, especially given the explicit statements made by numerous people (including the Church Committee) that all big media people work for the C_A in some fashion. It isn’t that the C_A subverts top level media stars, it’s that you can’t make it big unless you are already working for them. All evidence suggests that the media is completely controlled.
Now those may not be enough pieces of evidence to convince you, and that's fair, but it's just a start, and it is supporting evidence for the assertions, so not "no evidence."
Citing the "some disinfo is necessary" statement to cover every thing you don't want to be true is not using reason, but justifying belief. Look at the actual facts contained within the Q statements. Look at all the evidence of connections between AJ and Mossad/C_A. Look. Don’t be a True Believer. That will not help you uncover the scope of the deception.
The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”
The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”
Not a good foundation to build your argument on.
Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.
Association is not the same as guilt.
And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.
Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).
Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).
Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.
Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.
You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.
It’s evidence, not proof.
"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.
It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)
Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.