The Charlie Kirk murder conspiracy theorists and the Tyler Robinson evidence
Many people are pointing out that the current preliminary hearing in Utah in preparation for Tyler Robinson’s trial in the murder of Charlie Kirk is revealing how bankrupt the “theories” of conspiracy theorists such as Candace Owens are. But actually, almost all the facts being presented in the hearing were already known to anyone paying much attention at all to the case. Thing is, most people don’t do their homework, and that helps make them easy prey for someone like Owens and the others.
The case against Robinson is about as strong as a case can be. It’s not just that there isn’t a reasonable doubt, there is simply no doubt. And that’s been obvious for quite some time. But that doesn’t stop the conspiracy theorists. They thrive on something about human nature: cynicism, suspicion, the urge to doubt authorities (an impulse which, unfortunately, is sometimes quite justified), and the need to feel superior to the common gullible masses.
It’s also a kind of club thing: we are the cognoscenti and you are not. Or maybe a sorority, because people who study such things say that Owens’ followers tend to be women. Although it’s certainly possible that a great many are bots, I have little doubt that a significant number are real people. There is a big market for such things – including and perhaps especially the virulent Jew-hatred that Candace spreads.
It’s certainly not limited to Jew-hatred, either, although that’s a large part of it. Owens also has been viciously attacking Ericka Kirk, whom she’s painted not only as being in on her husband’s murder, but as having never been what she says she is but rather is – among other things – a child trafficker. Owens acolytes (and/or bots) roam around the internet, commenting on videos featuring Kirk and casting her as a villainess extraordinaire. It is actually a sickening thing to behold.
As a result of the overwhelming evidence against Robinson in the legal proceedings, will conspiracy theorists abandon the murky webs they’ve spun regarding Kirk’s death? There might be a couple of people here and there who do so, but not the major players and not the bulk of their followers. They will simply wiggle out of it or change the focus slightly. Not only is it a money-making endeavor for people like Owens, but for her followers it has become a deep belief.
[NOTE: Over the years, I’ve written many posts about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists. The majority of Americans still do not think that Oswald killed Kennedy or that he acted alone (see this). However, the evidence that he did is totally overwhelming, as I’ve explained in many previous posts.
I’m not going to rehash it here, having already spent so much time doing so. Suffice to say that I recommend the book Reclaiming History to anyone interested. You can find the text (or at least most of it) online here. As I said, I’ve written many posts on the subject, but here’s one of my posts that’s an overview.]
There is also another notable feature to this phenomenon: Absence of Consequence for the malefactors.
I watched the whole Kennedy assassination drama on TV in November 1963 as it happened – long story why. My favorite comment was from Jackie Kennedy:
“Why did it have to be a silly Communist.”
It’s funny that many of the proponents of the Kirk conspiracies will point to the JFK assassination as an example of how a conspiracy theory turned out to be right. If you argue that Oswald did kill Kennedy you will be viewed as extremely naive. I don’t know if that will ever change.
They’re calling Erica Kirk a “child trafficker?” Do these people have consciences? Probably not.
The evidence for Oswald as the lone killer is so overwhelming, you have to wonder about the deniers. I suspect that they have invested so much of themselves in the conspiracies, that they cannot accept the truth.
Owen dissapoints. She is black, quite attractive, intelligent, yet she come down on the side of the stupids. Why? is the question.
CICERO:
I wish I knew the answer. I don’t.
I’ve listened to a lot of people tackle the question, though, people who know her (or knew her). They all agree that she is smart and attractive. But they consider her a narcissistic attention-grabber (even a sociopath, according to some) who’s in it for the fame and clicks. She’s far more famous then she ever was before. She doesn’t really need the money, because she’s married to a very rich man. But she wants mega-fame. Some of these people think she’s suffered some sort of mental breakdown.
As I said, I don’t know. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that she also (perhaps as part of her quest for fame?) got very friendly with Kanye West at one point (I think strarting around 2018), and then he began becoming very openly anti-Semitic. I believe after that she started exhibiting some signs of Jew-hatred, too. Then she met her present husband in December of 2018 and married him about 8 months later. She had her first baby in 2021 but is now pregnant with her fifth child, so she has been pregnant nearly continuously since 2021. I don’t know how that has affected her physically or mentally, but it could be a factor (she’s 37 years old now).
In April of 2024 she converted to Catholicism (she was previously a Reformed Evangelical Protestant), but she does not follow the Catholic Church on Jews and many Catholics have criticized her for her virulent anti-Semitism.
So you see, boys and girls, a conspiracy theory is just a fact* that has not been proven yet.
* MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, and lately the insane fraud in Minnesota.
I do weary of conspiracy theory bashing and the No True Scotsman defense of it.
As to the JFK assassination. I eventually concluded that Oswald acted alone, but if one didn’t watch Oswald being gunned down in the basement of a police station in front of dozens of police officers without wondering, “Hey, wait a minute!”, I say such a person was not engaged in critical thinking.
huxley:
Once the facts came out about Ruby, it was pretty clear that was no conspiracy, either.
I don’t think it’s very hard to determine what might be a real conspiracy and what absolutely is not. It’s often hard to tell at the outset, however, as you point out. But even then some theories are more believable than others.
For example, Russiagate never made sense because if a person knew much about Trump it just wasn’t believable. Whereas the COVID lab leak theory always had evidence that made it believable, even before it was clear it was true.
So I’ve never debunked conspiracy theories per se. But at a certain point it became crystal clear that Oswald killed JFK alone, and yet the majority of Americans do not believe that.
And as far as Kirk’s murder, the evidence is already completely overwhelming against Robinson. The Candace Owenses of the world are trying to blame the Jews, the French, the guys in maroon shirts, and anyone but Robinson. It’s ludicrous but dangerous, because she has a significant following.
neo:
Ánd most Americans who believed there was no conspiracy didn’t do the reading, but still patted themselves on the back.
So I’ve never debunked conspiracy theories per se
I would say that’s still your goto move. Mine is more lenient. But that’s how human cognition works.
huxley:
Name a conspiracy theory I debunked that turned out to be true. That’s not a rhetorical question or a hostile one. It’s just that I can’t recall one I’ve debunked that turned out to be the truth. For example, note this post on the lab leak theory of COVID origins that I wrote back in April 2020. That’s really early.
I also was skeptical about the ultimate toll of COVID very early on, with the cruise ship data.
The JFK assassination as well as the killing of Oswald are two murders where we’ve had many many decades to gather data and come to a logical conclusion. That makes them clearer at this point than they were earlier.
I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said you cannot reason a man out of a position he was never reasoned into.
Russiagate fell apart for me when Mueller indicted the Russian companies and then argued (if I recall) lack of personal jurisdiction when one showed up and actually tried to contest the charges. Huh? That didn’t make a lick of sense, unless the real goal was narrative building instead of truth finding.
The problem with our time is that there are many, many, many reasons to disbelieve the veracity and competency of the institutions providing us with the official story. That gives running room to so many out-and-out hucksters, of which Owens is one.
Truth is not a binary choice. Proving that one source or institution is lying does not prove that competing sources are telling the truth! Stated another way, if you prove that all of institutions are untrustworthy, that doesn’t mean that the conspiracy theories are (necessarily) true, it just means that you actually know nothing.
Problem with the Oswald issue is….it only takes one, took one, to pull the trigger. Behind that one could be…or not be….a conspiracy which becomes vaguer and fuzzier the further back/out you go, with exponentially increasing opportunities for more individuals/forces involved with exponentially less evidence.
But up-front coincidences which look so coveeeenient cannot fail to draw attention, no matter the issue. Hence the attention to Ruby.
But with Robinson, none of that seems to be in play. We have seen, since Kennedy, enough people being radicalized by our political culture into doing violent acts that we don’t need an active, hands-on conspiracy behind him. Just endless vituperation without measure. And that’s enough. Now, whether there’s an organized attempt to make the atmosphere even worse and concentrate it, maybe aiming it at people whose house is not entirely in order….could be and how would we know the difference?