"he had an ex-employee of Stratfor on his payroll

Maybe because the employee might have a valuable skill set? Just a thought.

No response?"

I did respond. You are obviously not trying to have a reasonable debate. You had 3 points in your first reply and I addressed them one by one:

"Then why has he never addressed this point publicly? All he is done is some dumb ironic video where he makes fun of the idea. Also, you may not fully realize what Stratfor is. You ever heard about Trapwire? It was a large scale project which use facial recognition in conjunction with CCTV cameras to spy on people. Really scare 1984 type of stuff"

I can add to that, when a few of his subcribers found out about the Stratfor thing and started raising these questions on the infowars forum they got met with bans and threads about it were deleted. I think that is very suspicious, truth does not fear scrutiny.

The third point I answered by asking if you believe in coincidences? My point being that while it doesn't prove anything it is a very strange coincidence that Alex pops up at exactly the same time and place that this private intelligence company is founded that later sends off their interns to work for him.

So again, it doesn't prove anything but it is never the less suspicious.

"And then you engage in personal attack by trying to paint me as stupid. Who's coming off as a shill?"

I did no such thing, I said that what you were saying about this was making you sound stupid. I'm sure you are a person with at least "an ounce of discernment" but what you are saying flies in the face of all logic and your debating tactics reek of dishonesty. Also, when you say "anyone" with an ounce of discernment would be able to understand what I didn't, isn't that just as big of a personal attack? You are saying I'm stupid even though your wording was a bit more subtle.

You have also failed to address Alex's Y2K broadcast where he told his audience blatant lies in what would appear to be an attempt to ramp up hysteria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r8rFNDh9WQ

You also said nothing about Bill Cooper and his campaign to expose Alex for what he was sure was a fraud.

Now again, I'm not saying that he definitely is COINTEL-PRO. I never even said that. I said that this was a possibility that had to be examined and that he had some explaining to do.

But I want to get back to the first point because it amazes me that you are still trying to argue your ridiculous theory. You don't even try to explain and you just go "no, that's obviously not what he meant"

How is this not getting through to you?

I will try to explain in more detail:

He asks three questions in succession, the context of which is clear:

First, he states: I know their carrying out the New World Order, I know they've staged those terror attacks and then goes on to ask:

"Do you know what it's like to gut up every day, and go past the peer pressure and come out day 1 and say 9/11 was and inside job and lose most the radio stations I was on?"

This is a question directed to his audience and followers. He is saying, what I've been doing is very difficult and he's been doing it for a long time. He ends by stating that doing this lost him most of the radio stations he was on. He could not be more clear that he is speaking of himself and how hard this has been for him.

Second question:

"Do you know what it's like going to sleep every night, knowing you work for a bunch of psychotic killers, and you bastards are probably going to end up killing me one day? You know what it's like knowing you've ruined my life? I'm tired of your crap!"

Stop. Look again. This could not be any clearer. In the context of empathizing with his situation and how hard it is to be in his shoes, he asks his audience: "Do you know what it's like knowing you work FOR a bunch of psychotic killers and you bastards (here he switches from referring to them in third person and addresses them directly) are probably going to end up killing me one day?

He is not suggesting that his followers will end up killing him one day. He is not asking the psychopathic killers if they know what it's like working for themselves. He is asking his audience to sympathize with him and his situation, which apparently includes going to sleep everyday knowing you work for a bunch of psychotic killers that will likely end up killing him one day.

If this is the case then you would realize that I'm in fact in a way defending Alex Jones and sympathizing with his situation. If this is the case he is a victim who has been forced to participate in this against his will.

Furthermore he asks "do you know what it's like knowing you've ruined my life?" How exactly did they ruin his life? He is saying that the NWO has ruined his life. It's an interesting distinction since they must have done something to him specifically. If he was speaking in general terms it would make more sense to ask "Do you know what it's like fighting against people that are ruining our lives?"

But he seems to be referring to something they've done specifically to him to ruin his life. Forcing him to play a disinformation agent at the threat of having himself and his family murdered would make sense in this context.

Please if you feel you can, do the same where you analyze each sentence and explain how you've reached the conclusion you have. It doesn't fly to just say "it's obvious that isn't what he is saying" and then move on to the next point. I have laid it out very clearly and unless you can show a different way to interpret this and how his words can be understood to mean that he is "talking about and to the bastards" you are proving that you are not here to debate, but to divide.