I'm going to take the unpopular stance. I can understand people concluding his content has to do with -- for example, all the big-picture interdimensional shit. But he's grinding out those ideas in a "this, then this, then this" form that doesn't seem intuitive. I find it hard to take in, even though some of the topics he riffs on hold longstanding interest for me, at least when they're presented in a more credible way. I think he has weak .

Understanding him is complicated by the fact I've taken a couple of trainings in voice acting, one of them with a radio guy who is pretty similar to Jones. The over-the-topness on display has been specifically taught to me as a way of making your voice play on radio--using huge gestures and intense emotions to rev things up because you're dealing only in sound. I'm hesitant to say what is here because I've seen people of many types do it. Jones also appears on video, but I'm not sure how much of what he's doing is an adaptation of his shock-jock radio techniques.

Of the typings in this this thread, I prefer @silke's, LSE.