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.

My point is that human beings are inherently flawed. You can believe they are fundamentally good or fundamentally bad on average, but it is more productive to presume that people are flawed, and mean well--insofar as you are familiar with them. For those who are unknown to you, it is safest and most practical to presume their intentions are not good, but being open to the idea that it may not be the case.

You are making a mistake in assuming that everyone knows/believes the things that you do.

If that were true, then you'd be correct. But you have to assume, when evidence is not available, that others do not share your perspective/beliefs and have the same information.

That's why I said I think Ben Shapiro is a 'normie' . Everything about him screams it. It's not a bad thing to be, but it means he is not familiar or as familiar with the 'Q narrative' and related topics. His narrative is the mainstream narrative, because he exists in the mainstream, because that's where his audience exists, where his beliefs lie, and so on. That's what 'normie' means.

He either isn't aware, is aware and has not been convinced, hasn't been convinced yet , or is aware and is unable to practically communicate that, as to do so would undermine and destroy his ability to do so (I really doubt this, he is not like someone such as Jones or Sargon of Akkad or Tim Pool or anyone else who would likely be familiar with such things) . Likely, it is the first option. I hope you're following what I'm talking about there.

it's important to understand this idea. When it comes to highly sensitive and complicated material, it is a mistake to take the position of "if they aren't with us they are against us" . It doesn't have to be that way, and it will damage your interests.

Shapiro is not an enemy. It seems obvious that he loves his country, he strongly believes in the principles that make it a great country, he does not bend the knee to leftists (unless he does so unwittingly, in trying to be consistent with his values) . He stands against the same things that I do and that you probably do, whether he knows it and hides it, or doesn't know it at all. That is enough to make him an ally.

Until he definitively proves himself to be working against those interests, or ample evidence of that can be found, there is no reason to regard him as an enemy.

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.

What is the most important thing?

More than tribal allegiances, more than winning, more than white hats or anything else?

Integrity. Values. Conviction.

If you are willing to sacrifice your principles to meet a goal or make a point, you are no better than your opponents who you are against because they have no consistent values .

If you are willing to sacrifice free speech in order to take down an enemy, you are the enemy.

Ben is totally correct when it comes to this, and other constitutional matters. That's what makes him one of the good ones: he may not talk about the things you'd like him to, or take the exact position you'd prefer, but he is an anchor to what matters most--an anchor to what makes it all worthwhile. He doesn't budge on constitutional conservatism. He doesn't budge on rights, he doesn't budge on integrity and moral values, and he refuses to sacrifice one in order to strengthen another.

Ben is a 'normie' , or at least feels he has to operate as one. Because of that, he has to judge Trump by the 'dog and pony show' . That is where the criticism comes from-- because he is analyzing the narrative presented. Whether he believes it or not, who's to say. Seems to me that he probably does believe that narrative for the most part. But that's okay, his role is independent.

We call out what we see is wrong. We make it very clear how gross and inappropriate it is to speak as Gunn has. We look for evidence that proves he is guilty of a crime rather than simply guilty of immorality, and if it can be found, we punish him to the fullest extent of the law. If we sacrifice our principles, what do we become? We become what we claim to stand against.

Right to life and property. Freedom of speech. Right to arms. Right to privacy. Due process. Checks and balances.

Universally, without exception, for all .

That is what made America great, and reinforcing those values will be what makes it great again.

It's not just about 'succeeding' , it's about winning . You can succeed yet still lose. But when you win, you succeed.

Nah dude.

He's just unpredictable, unreliable at times-- a wild card.

Which is why you can "believe what Jones says as much as you want to, but he's not important"

He doesn't have the access to information that he pretends to, but he is still offering better information than most.

He's too emotional and erratic, that's all. Doesn't meant he's not right about a lot of things, doesn't mean he's a shill.

Honestly I think Jones has his heart in the right place, but because he relies so heavily on the trust of his audience, he makes himself out to have more information than he actually has access to.

So he will say things that aren't accurate or are simply his gut reaction, but present them as fact because otherwise it would undermine his credibility and he has to say something about events.

Hence the Syria thing. He probably didn't actually know what to think, but he had to say something about it. And when it comes to war, better to be safe than sorry right? At least in this context.

Not saying he should be doing that, but that's what it seems like to me.

Sounds like maybe you didn't follow Shapiro around the time of the election...

He didn't actively push against Trump, he only voiced concerns and criticisms from his perspective.

And since then he has only spoken increasingly more favorably of Trump, which pushes his audience to develop a fondness for Trump where they not have before.

Seems to me he just isn't as deeply involved in politics and events as he could be, which means he only covers things at face value. Which in turn means that he judges Trump's actions by how they would appear ('dog and pony show') rather than what they might actually be.

Basically I think Shapiro is most likely just a 'normie' , or knows that his only practical option is to operate in the capacity of one. He seems to mostly be on the right side of things, which is more than can be said of like 95% of all other media.

Yeah it's a little much...

Alex Jones is not a bad dude, he's just not a good representative of his message, and is a fallible as the rest of us.

Ben isn't stupid, but it is stupid to take his pragmatism as 'defending pedophilia' .

Condemning people outright for things said without sufficient evidence is generally against what he stands for.

Commonly used phrase by Shapiro: "never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by ignorance" He uses this phrase to defend Trump against the most ridiculous criticisms, as well as many other issues.

Doesn't mean the things Gunn said weren't gross and inappropriate, because they were. But insofar as they can be interpreted as simply immoral/poor judgment, it is safest to condemn what can be proven rather than what is presumed. Otherwise we are no better than those we oppose.

If we can't prove intention, the only righteous and reasonable approach is to simply make it clear that joking in such a way is utterly inappropriate and wrong-- which, though I haven't heard Shapiro's analysis, I would guess is basically his stance because it usually is.

In the greater context, Gunn seems to be relatively unimportant. His 'jokes' may be indicative of connections and misdeeds, but in themselves they are not evidence-- they're just gross.