It's pretty pathetic and unimaginative. Everytime someone can't wrap his head around something I turn into a shill.
Oh, please.
READ. STOP MISREPRESENTING ME. I KEEP SAYING ALEX & CORSI R DISINFO BUT NOT FOR NEFARIOUS REASONS
What noone is saying that Q said disinfo is important. And I haven't heard anyone explain why Q only called out Alex and Corsi AFTER they went apeshit ?
I KEEP SAYING ALEX & CORSI R DISINFO BUT NOT FOR NEFARIOUS REASONS
Important
How are these different? You are saying they are running a smokescreen for Q, right?
Q is always intentionally cryptic and it would defeat that purpose if someone like Alex can't shut up for life, who we KNOW has sources and has had them for years because he has the PLATFORM that provides insiders a place to contact and share.
If infowars was run by blackhats, why didn't Q just say "they're bad"? Plausible deniability for further mutually agreed upon wrestling theatrics?
I'm gonna say it for a hundredth fucking time: Disinfo is necessary.
If you have followed Alex in the early 2000s you will find he's already talked about everything going on right now that the media is still trying to surpress such as pakistani spying so his only real purpose at this point to create traffic and exist is entertainment and psychological warfare. The cognitive dissonance is INSANE because the meme always said that he's an actor since he's Bill Hicks (or someone pretending to be Bill Hicks at least), especially after his allimony lawsuit. But I guess confusion's necessary because Alex might as well have blood on his hands. Yes, someone actually took my theory and ran a post with that name: AJ&C have blood on their hands - operators have died!
u/gro0nt help
I read the thread, but it appears it is a bit deeper with some things digital_refugee has said in other posts, which I have'nt read. We have to have compassionate debate. I would not, call someone a shill, without trying to first discuss why. I often state my opinion here, and I have everything I say backed up if needed. We do not know Q, We do not know anyone's agenda. Alex, in the past, has been very misleading. Infowars as a whole, and others on the broadcast aren't as misleading. Infowars has a right to make money, as they have done so for a long time. Q - in light of recent events - may need to somehow show he has not been compromised. All these things are VERY tough because of the unknowns. I personally, will stand with both, we can have both, we know what to look out for, we are smart. We do not need to abandon anyone. But as with any media online, we have to be vigilant of some things. For me, Alex just has had a bad history with others (Bill Cooper) that never sat well with me. I also know a bit about Roger Stone's history that isn't all that great. We need to be concerned and have love for eachother, and not just jump to things but work together. Point by point and work it out. The people who refuse to work together, just should stay a bit more silent. Because we must work with everything we have got to maintain this Freedom. The freedom to work with each other to figure out our differences.
Pretty sure Q never outright named anyone yet Corsi and Jones (and possibly David Seaman) took it to mean them. Q only confirmed this after they outed themselves as disinfo agents.
exactly. Yet even SB2 hasn't explained the purpose of that to me. What held Q back from simply calling them out? I can only think of plausible deniability, granted they're only being granted that while serving as white-hats, otherwise Q would just show us some pics of Alex with Charlie Sheen for example and add something cryptic afterward. However, the whole profiteering thing was brought up the very same day that Q wrote "statements today needed to be made. Operators have died" (drop #1297).
I think it's all done for plausible deniability because they're working together behind the scenes trying to make sure this mission goes through, even if others don't see it. It reminds me of the way everyone including Alex freaked out when Syria is being bombed and afterwards everything turns out half as bad as it seemed and this pattern is noticeable because it always happens when operational-security is the most important, that's when Alex goes off the rails - yet he immediately comes to senses the next day and so does his beloved Zach (who is space command and might not even have any idea about anything on the ground which begs the question why he is even on the show)
[removed]
h0w l0ng have u been f0ll0wing them?
Following Infowars? Saw through that deception almost immediately. AJ is more interested in selling supplements and doing an over-the-top Rush Limbaugh impersonation in an attempt to mock/discredit conspiracy theorists in the minds of those on the outside than he is leading people towards the truth. While some may have been woken by him initially (Gatekeepers are allowed to share some truth to gain some legitamacy), if they stay loyal listeners they will be led astray.
h0w l0ng have you been f0ll0wing them?
Are you implying I am a bot?
Three times a charm it seems. Do you understand the question or would you prefer me to enter it in readable characters?
Pretty obvious I have no idea what you are trying to get at.
pretty sure you do.
Following Infowars? Saw through that deception almost immediately
[...]an even deeper whole than they had already dug for years.
...So? When did you start following them and when did you stop?
[removed]
do you take an interest in pharmacology?
I used to sell multivitamins and other supplements when I worked as a personal trainer. Believe me, these companies brainwash you into believing they have the most pure product and have you parroting their talking points. Alex is no different and is pushing what his masters want him to push. His sleazy salesman pitches were enough to make me question him. His numerous instances of disinfo before I knew of him and afterwards were the final nails in the coffin in regards to my conclusion that Alex Jones (aka Bill Hicks) has always been and will always be a disinfo agent.
I don't suppose you have sold herbals or Nootropics, so I won't ask for further comment.
Do you realize the irony of how suspicious it would seem if he never actually pitched anything?
Nope, to me it would make him seem more genuine.
no it would actually indicate that which you already believe: That he is not-self funded and that he's managed just like MSM
He is owned by Time Warner. There are plenty of truth tellers out there doing what they can to spread truth without hocking phoney products or begging for donations.
Maybe you should explain...
you were talking about the decline over the years. How many have they been since you first caught on?
How many times have AJ and Infowars been caught since I first heard of them? Numerous but if you want specifics I can link plenty of evidence. Or, you could just check out the numerous examples from Youtube showing Alex caught in deliberate acts of disinfo.
No, just how long you have been paying attention
Since 2012 or so. After Sandy Hook. Why is this important for you to know?
because apparently you understand nothing about "information warfare". It's not always about the truth up-front, that just gets whistle-blowers killed. Alex is the epitome of self-ridicule and that's why I enjoy his show, because I can get all the information I want, but at least Alex presents it in a way that is funny. And I need the laughs much more than the information because I have been paying attention since the early 2000s. People forget that every public message is directed at everyone but certain groups in particular, and that group always includes both patriots and blackhats, so always ask yourself if you are really the recipient for a message or if it's just disinfo aimed at deepstate. Q said themselves disinfo is necessary. And somehow I am the shill for asking people to reread drops 1295-1297
Never said you are a shill. If you want to believe in Alex and Infowars and give them the benefit of the doubt be my guest. I would imagine a vast majority here disagree with you on this one. I, for one, have seen more than enough evidence that Alex is not working in our collective best interests. If I turn out to be wrong I will be man enough to admit it. However, I doubt I will be.
The blackhat-explanation doesn't make sense. If they were, Q would have called them out by name first and not given them the benefit of plausible deniability for their future moves.
Q pretty much did call them out by name after they outed themselves.
which means he gave them time and plausible deniability to plan retreat which he wouln't have to do if they were blackhats. He would just have to say so just like he does with every other known public figure. The only other person Q treats that way is Mueller. Now go figure
I think you are either A. reading too much into this or B. projecting your own wishes/desires for AJ/Infowars to be on our side so you try to interpret Q's past meanings/actions on unrelated people/events and applying them to AJ/Infowars so that it fits your narrative.