[911]

Actually, it's the opposite, he's moved to the mainstream and doesn't talk about things like 9/11 much any more. He's done that opportunistically, because in the last election cycle, the media has lied so much and so blatantly that there was a huge pent up demand for pro-Trump non-gaslighting coverage, so he was able to ride that wave.

Like most other well-funded alt-right independent media (Breitbart, The Rebel,...) , he has a ((blind spot)).

About the "kooky" stuff, there is not much of it on InfoWars actually, the criticism is mostly normie smearing of him. The one kooky site with a big reach is mainly David Icke, who's even more blatantly controlled opposition. He's allowed to poison the well with his reptilian crap, which smears the whole truth/skeptical community.

Quote:

That doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie, but some of it almost certainly is.

He's a carnival barker and sensationalist who is more of a shock jock than a journalist, but even then he's more truthful than most respected MSM outlets.

[911]

About the Sandy Hook incident itself, I haven't done enough research, but from what I remember, there were a lot of glaring inconsistencies in the official narrative. The issue here is whether that kind of deep state manipulation is completely outside of your Overton Window (not my case).

The problem as well is that most people get dragged down to an emotional level, as in, "how insensitive, think of the victims!", and there is also a basic dynamic of cognitive dissonance that blocks people fro even entertaining the possibility that it could have been a deep state psyop.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I learned the hard way that trying to drag conspiracy theorists in to the light of day or MSM addicts into the shadow worlds of political conspiracy is mostly a waste of time.

Being staunchly pro-gun rights for the last ten years has taught me this.

When you claim "shooting x was a conspiracy designed to take our gun rights" what you're telling people is that "nobody really got shot so you can't take my guns". On this premise anybody listening will take either the stance that, yes, people got shot and it's ok to take your guns or, (unlikely) no, nobody got shot and you can keep your guns.

Americans in particular shouldn't play this game because their response to a massacre can lawfully be "nobody gets to take my guns whether some lunatic kills 10 people or 100, so your news reels are of no relevance to the matter."

Conspiracy theorists often fall for this trap. They take up the argument that issue X is fake but they don't realise that to the public this is not seen as a first line of defence but as their only line of defence, and if their only line of defence seems to the average punter to be total kookery then their entire political capital goes to waste.