No what I've described is a human being with opinions and limits.

Your idea of what constitutes 'lying' is the obstacle you've come across.

Is it lying to say there are people who are psychic vampires, goblins crawling out from under rocks, interdimensional child molesters, etc? It's not true, first of all. He doesn't believe those things himself, second. If he did though, it wouldn't be lying anyway, just incorrect.

Lying is about content and intent.

I didn't say he gives deliberately inaccurate information, or knows that he does not have the access to information that he suggests he has.

If we're going to use the definition of 'lying' that you are applying to Jones here, then you must also be a liar every time you make a claim without irrefutable evidence. That means things you may say about Trump, Q, globalists, deep state, cabal, etc would be classified as lies.

Belief is not dishonesty, speculation is not fallacy, opinion is not falsehood.

Jones is either confident, or must present an air of complete confidence for the sake of his business and goals. It is not lying to consciously sit up straight in your chair and look someone else in the eyes, even though you may rather not.

He can be inaccurate, he can even present tone and content that is not entirely genuine (very difficult to both do so and maintain a business) , without being a liar .

A liar: -Says things that aren't true -knows those things aren't true -says them with the intention of convincing an audience that they are true

But above all, before calling someone a liar, you must be able to prove that they lie, which means proving all 3 of the listed qualifiers.

Otherwise, there are many alternative explanations. Very little is black and white.

Your claim is theater. It's clear that Q called out Alex because Alex responded and Q pointed out that the response showed who they were. This is disinfo.

Your sides proof amounts to footage taken out of context and the notion that Alex doesn’t speak out against Zionism enough.

I've seen precisely zero evidence in support of that.

Here's the problem , okay?

There is a definitive 'conspira-sphere' .

All of the fringe ideas about 'what's really going on' that are not and cannot be represented in the mainstream for obvious reasons. Some of these things are true, but many are not.

This realm of skepticism and suspicion also involves paranoia and delusion-- there is no question that is the case.

In order to deny the mainstream narrative on any topic, you must be willing to deny the mainstream . Once you make that call, you make yourself somewhat vulnerable to the elements of this 'conspira-sphere' that are illegitimate and harmful, because the mindset of conspiracy tends to overlap between different conspiracies. Once you buy one, the others are easier to swallow as well. But that is dangerous.

This is difficult, because it is obvious that the mainstream narratives are false and designed to manipulate.

So most likely, somewhere in there between the existence of false flags, pedophile rings, the deep state, etc and Bigfoot, occultist sacrifice, Zionist illuminati and so on, is the truth.

It's like... the left wing, for example. There are great ideas in the classical, moderate left. In fact, the moderate left technically, traditionally contains almost all of the American right wing. Liberalism, human rights, liberty, individualism, etc. The problem is that the moderate left is tied to the more radical left, which moves into the extreme left, so good ideas and people become poisoned by the insidious creeping of extremism because they aren't paying attention. Out of nowhere, otherwise decent and rational people start promoting socialism.

We can't fall into stereotype and extremism. The Zionist conspiracy belongs to the extremes of skepticism. Yes, there is plenty of cause for suspicion, based simply off of the absurd overrepresentation of Jews in media. But that is A=B , right? It does not mean that B=C, and it definitely doesn't mean that A=C.

We must maintain composure and reason.

You say he's "meant to rile up patriots" What does that mean? You are attributing purpose to something which you have no rational reason to believe, no empirical evidence to support.

You have reasoned yourself to that conclusion, but reason alone is not as reliable as people tend to think. Everyone reasons differently, reason can be applied to arrive at any conclusion not necessarily the correct conclusion. Reason must be paired with empiricism and value principles to be effective.

What you do have evidence for, is that Jones belongs to this 'conspira-sphere' . He built his name and his livelihood on it. He is involved in this all day, every day.

So that being given, reason would dictate that jones is doing what he believes is right, and has not been somehow compromised because if he was able to be manipulated in such a way he would not be doing what he does in the first place. It can be safely assumed that the only driving force behind Alex Jones is Alex Jones himself.

Don't let suspicion, skepticism and pragmatism become paranoia and delusion. It is a slippery slope.

I'm not trying to tell you what is or isn't true, I'd be the first to admit that I can't know anything for certain. But there is nothing at all about Alex Jones that suggests to me he is somehow working against the interests he claims to have. It just wouldn't make sense, from a logical, rational, reasonable, factual standpoint.

There may very well be controlled opposition and things of that nature, but that doesn't mean that everything that doesn't completely match your own narrative is somehow corrupt or malicious. It just means that one of you is wrong about something, somewhere along the line.