Once again on Candace Owens and the novelty take social media treadmill

Dresden at Christmas.

The outraged emails have hit my inbox, and the indignant unsubscribers are there too. I’m very sorry to lose touch with some of you over our disagreement on theories of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, particularly because I’m quite sure this whole fracas will be forgotten much sooner than you imagine. When that moment comes – when the big streamers fold up their tables and move on to the next show – there will have been no big political revelations and no deep insights into the shadowy cabals pulling the strings. There will just be innuendo, uncertainty and vague possibilities, extending in every direction as far as the eye can see. These things always play out the same way.

As I said, it’s not my goal to convince anybody that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. First of all, that project is impossible; human beliefs, once settled, aren’t subject to revision by arguments or evidence. Second of all, Owens and her theories about Kirk are just an example for me. It’s this kind of content in general, not any specific proprietary interpretation in itself, that I mean to criticise.

In what follows, I will elaborate upon and defend some points in my last post on Candace Owens and the Internet Brainrot Industry. If you like my work, maybe you’d consider subscribing to my newsletter. None of this would be possible without my generous supporters.