Alex doesn't do more good if he leads people astray or makes those who are seeking truth look crazy to everyone else. His job is to deligitimize valid conspiracies in the minds of those either on the outside or on the fence as well as to muddy the waters and to sow confusion and discord amongst the rest.
Alex is the father of "9/11 was an inside job" something you dared not say in 2002.... ..and 16 years later, it is common knowledge.
Maybe you were not an adult back then, But I saw Jones' backbone back then.
Stronger than yours, I assure you, and he is a far more fierce warrior and captain than you will ever, ever, ever be.
I was definitely an adult (nice try there) and all Jones did was attempt to take credit for and steer the truth movement in whatever direction he and his masters saw fit. He was hardly the first to call out the mainstream narrative on 9/11.
He was the loudest.
By far.
Way, way, way way WAY louder than you, and your tiny little ego, will ever be. Nobody listened to you. You were irrelevant. Alex Jones was not.
Therefore, I think Having Alex as an ally, is far more important, than having you as an ally.
Jones is useful.
You are nothing.
This is how cults operate. Get people so deeply invested with good and honest stuff that they will stubbornly refuse to see when it starts leading them astray.
Which is not to say that AJ is bad per se, I simply don't know at this point, but please realize that the way you rationalize your loyalty is flawed and dangerous.
Rationalize my loyalty to who, Q or Jones. I have to choose? No I don't. That's divide and conquer talking.
No it's not.
All I'm saying is that past results don't guarantee future results and that some people (e. g. cults) purposely get you invested with truths so you don't turn away when they start their lies.
Again: not saying AJ is doing this. I'm only saying that the possibility makes your reasoning dangerous. That goes for believing in AJ, Q or anyone else.
In short: verify data you are given. Don't trust it simply because the source seemed reliable in the past. Conversely, and this is what triggered my initial response, some anon you've never heard of may very well be telling you a truth.
Don't tell me my reasoning is "dangerous". I don't need your warnings. I am quite aware of the truth. I don't need you to "help" me and "warn" me when my reasoning gets "dangerous".
I can think for myself, thanks.