QAA Podcast - The Charlie Kirk Assassination Conspiracy Theory Ecosystem feat. Brandy Zadrozny (E383)

Episode Date: July 30, 2026

After years spent cultivating distrust of the press, the courts and official investigations, Turning Point USA now has a problem: the same paranoid media machine they nurtured has turned on Charlie Kirk’s family and organization. MS NOW reporter Brandy Zadrozny joins Travis, Julian, and Jake to discuss the ecosystem converting speculation about Kirk’s assassination into social media views and money. Brandy Zadrozny on Twitter https://x.com/BrandyZadrozny Brandy Zadrozny on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/brandyzadrozny.bsky.social Subscribe for $5 a month to get all the premium episodes: www.patreon.com/qaa Check out our new podcast series network Cursed Media! All episodes of Spectral Voyager Season 2 are out now! Binge the entirety of Truly Tradly Deeply by Annie Kelly and Megan Kelly as well as Science in Transition by Liv Agar and Spencer Barrows: cursedmedia.net Produced by Liv Agar & Corey Klotz. Theme by Nick Sena. Additional music by Pontus Berghe and Jake Rockatansky. Theme Vocals by THEY/LIVE (instagram.com/theyylivve / sptfy.com/QrDm). Cover Art by Pedro Correa: (pedrocorrea.com) qaapodcast.com QAA was known as the QAnon Anonymous podcast.

If you're hearing this, well done. You've found a way to connect to the internet. Welcome to the QAA podcast, episode 383, the Charlie Kirk Assassination Conspiracy Theory ecosystem, featuring Brandy Zedrosny. As always, we are your host, Jake Rockatansky, Julian Field, and Travis View. Since Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University last September,

an enormous online ecosystem has devoted itself to proving that almost nobody involved who they claimed to be, and almost nothing happened the way people think it did. The man charged with Kirk's murder, Tyler Robinson, is supposedly a Patsy. The surveillance footage is fake. The witnesses are lying. Turning Point USA is hiding something. Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk, is somehow in on it. And according to one very insistent farmer and engineer from Oklahoma,

Kirk was killed due to an exploding microphone, not a bullet. This is placed Turning Point USA in an uncomfortable position. After years spent cultivating an audience, suspicious of the press and practically every other institution capable of establishing a shared set of facts, the organization now needs that audience to trust the official investigation and stop accusing Kirk's widow, friends, and employees of participating in his murder. The fact that the cheap amplifier of Kirk conspiracy theories is Candace Owens, a former employee of TPUSA, is making this especially difficult. Our guest today, Brandy's Adrosny, has described it as a story of what happens when a conspiracy

movement you help build finally comes for you. Brandy is a senior enterprise reporter at MS Now, who covers misinformation, extremism, and online communities. She attended Tyler Robinson's recent pretrial hearings in Utah, spoke with conspiracy believers lining up outside the courthouse, has been tracking the sprawling network of influencers, turning Kirk's death into an endlessly expanding and highly profitable participatory mystery. Brandy, thank you so much for joining us.

It is my pleasure, long time listener. Yeah, we've chatted for many years since you were a reporter for other outlets. And yeah, I'm glad to finally be able to get you on the show. Yeah, me too. Thanks for having me. So how would you describe it by the scene outside of the courthouse? Your boots on the ground in Provo. What would you see outside the hearings?

So I went to this hearing with kind of two minds. I was going to, you know, I figured I was going to hear facts all day. And then I wanted very much to know how those were being received outside because we had no phones. We had no, we only had a not a notepad. We weren't allowed to bring any electronics on our laptop. So I couldn't see, usually I'd be watching on the internet and see how people in real time were sort of twisting it or reacting to it. And I couldn't see any of that. So I would go into the hearing and sit there all day and think, wow, we just got evidence that I hadn't really seen or hadn't seen in this way before and come out pretty dang convinced that Tyler Robinson should definitely be going to trial. And then I would come out and talk to some of the people that were there at the time, the Charlie Truthers, who believed that, you know, Erica's in on. it or it wasn't Tyler Robinson that Tyler Robinson's a Patsy. And then I talked to them and they would immediately in front of my eyes just discount all that they had just seen. Some of them from within

the hearing too. And so it was just like my brain was sort of like a ping pong being like reality, non-reality, reality, non-reality. And it just made me think that like, oh, we are in deep trouble. Because if you can't even, like, you're seeing it with your own eyes and you're not believing it. I just like, I think a lot about what will change someone's mind. And it just, it was a, it was a really strange, trippy sort of feeling. I think a lot of the time, like, I went there as interested in seeing what was happening there as what was happening outside. I thought there would be a bigger showing of conspiracy theorists. And we really had like a core group of people, many of whom I had been following for months. You talk about that creator network, that ecosystem. I've been

obsessed with these people because in a way that I think is gone unnoticed. A lot of people talk about Candace, but she could not do this on her own. And she says so on her program. she is in need of the narrative and she has supplied that narrative by a few dozen conspiracist creators, little baby Alex Joneses who just like throw spaghetti at the wall and see what might make its way upstream to Candace. And when they do, it's sort of pay dirt. Literally, they get paid when this happens. They get paid in followers and in cloud. And in other cases, which, you know, I'm documenting for this project at MS now, it turns into a real full-time job for them. Yeah. Yeah. I always thought Candice Owens sort of like her, her,

methodology for, I guess, promoting conspiracy theories. It's always interesting to me because we saw this with her conspiracy theory about the McCrones, is that she essentially found sort of a under amplified conspiracy theory. That was maybe that was sort of bubbling up in France and brought it to a U.S. audience. So she's not really making her own sort of theories generally. It's like her or perhaps her team sort of scans the wide world of the conspiracy ecosystem and she decides what's to elevate on her show and her large audience. Yeah, who will Queen be Candice Knight is sort of like the idea, right?

Like she like pluck, she can pluck you out of obscurity really and change your whole life with just a mention. And yeah, I think, you know, the thing about Candace is I've been trying to think a lot about why she would do this to Charlie Kirk and to Charlie Kirk's children and to Charlie Kirk's widow and to all of Charlie Kirk's friends and to Charlie Kirk's legacy, which is I really think she's dismantling it. She's, she's destroying it or helping to. And I've been thinking a lot about it. And Candice has always been willing to say and know that she needs to say the thing that no one else will say. Like differentiation has always been her bag. And that's hard. It's hard to keep thinking of ideas like that.

And, you know, she's also been getting more and more extreme and more and more niche because, like, eventually what is there left to say? So she needs help and she gets it. So I'm to understand that this bad person is dismantling Charlie Kirk's legacy? I am horrified. Is it possible that she is just like crazy herself and that like many of us just like stays up like late at night like doom scrolling through like the most obscure like whatever forums I'm on like I shudder to think where Candice like drifts off to on the internet. You know like it is really interesting to see her as almost like a fringe extreme conspiracy taste maker. But like when you sort of like kind of present her as that it's very I mean it feels very right on but it's also like so cynical, which I do think that she is. Yeah.

Like I don't think she's like delving into Kiwi farms to find like you know, I don't think she's I think she's very basic. She's a very basic person and a very basic woman. Like people have come to her with these theories and I think once one sounds good to her, she just really runs with it. Like the Egyptian plane stuff, that was Ian Carroll. right? Ian Carroll came to her with that stuff. Like you mentioned, the farmer John Bray came to her with this exploding mic theory. And she will take a theory that sounds good and run it to the ground and then hop off that train and, you know, jump on to the next one. Which, you know, we can talk about. But like, can you explain to me how she gets away with this? Never revealing. Like, where is the, where is it? Oh, did you not know that it's getting away season? Did you not know that it's crime season? You know what it is? I just came up with something that I think is like, brilliant, an idea, a phrase just popped in front of me. And it was soap opera news. And it's like, the fact that like you never, in this conspiracy world, you never have to deliver anything. Like the people who are your fans are already used to none of their theories ever coming true.

And so essentially like, I think that's exactly it is that it's just like soap opera news. And she takes whatever she thinks is like, you know, the most like, it has the best legs, right? Just like a writer's room. And then yeah, just fucking, yeah, runs with it till she has to jump. the shark and then just goes on to the next season. And it's just like there's no consequences because it's all fake and it's all storytelling in some way. And like maybe even the audience knows that to some degree, but the reality is too sad to fish. So the WWE theory basically?

Yeah, the WWE theory basically. I don't know. I know if I say one wrong thing on television, I have like senators tweeting about me, like that I should be fired. And there's just like no consequence and it makes me feel really frustrated. But that's fine. Yeah, choosing to do the right thing, choosing to do like the right true thing in this world, especially in this media ecosystem is often like, it's the more difficult path for sure. I mean, look at this.

You know, poor Candace, she has to deal with us making episodes, all right? Many. So if you think that senators calling you out, wait until the QAA crew comes at you. You're done for your toast. She's actually shutting down her business after she hears this one. I mean, on some level, it's, you know, they're coming after you because you're a legitimate person. Yes, because you're associated with the mainstream media. Exactly.

And there is, you know, attacking your credibility serves them way more than trying to attack somebody like can't. That's going into the mud and tickling the pigs. You know what I'm saying? No. What? No. God, nobody knows. You know that old saying going into the mud.

You get down to the mud and you're tickling. And you're down in the mud, you're tickling with the pig. You're tickling the pigs. Nobody's, nobody's caught. You're tickling with the pigs. You're tickling with the pigs. That's what I'm saying. Yeah.

Yeah. You're not standing at the fence with the other farmers. One more metaphor. We're almost there. Yeah. There's this concept in like the, I guess the literature on conspiracy theories, like a conspiracy entrepreneur, which is like basically someone who builds up a brand and a presence and an audience on the back of conspiracy theories for self-gain.

I think Candace is like one of the purest examples of this because usually I feel like generally the conspiracies ecosystem. They serve the same rough general kind of agenda politically and they move in roughly the same direction even if they diverge. Whereas like Candice is a true. We called her before the right ring Ronan because she is by herself. She has no master and she's creating an audience for herself or independent of any other like conservative or right wing organization. I don't know how to respond to that. I have a question for you. And I'm sorry, my brain is not necessarily linear. So I apologize. No, no, you're in the right place. How do y'all feel about, like I work for MS now, right? It's obviously a progressive outlet. It's a news outlet with

progressive opinion hosts and anchors. How do you or do, like, you know, Julianne, you made this joke about like, oh, poor T.P. USA. And like, I hear you. You know, they just made $150 million last year brought it $150 million. Like, you know, not too much empathy for the business of TPP USA or what they stand for or the conspiracy theories that they further, et cetera, et cetera. But like, I have a hard time getting people on the left and just like progressive people that hate TPSA to care sometimes about these conspiracy theories. A lot of it's like, well, let them fight.

And I feel away about it. But I really wanted to ask y'all how you feel about it. Uh, that you're probably going to get differing answers from differing hosts here. Because I am a little more, I'm a little more on the let them fight side of things. And that's not to say, don't point out that what they're saying is wrong. It's just, I don't expect that to have any effect on this, like, narrative and attention-driven economy. Yeah, well, I have to say, I'm like, I'm generally attracted to the idea that some claims are more likely to be true than false. And some claims are more likely to be false than true.

And there's a way to tell a. difference and it's important to make that distinction publicly. So I think generally, yeah, I think that I'm glad that TPSA is the target, not, you know, more innocent targets. But, but, you know, I think I'm really interested in just looking at the wide media sort of information ecosystem and sort of picking through what is true and what is false. I think that's important for us to have this sort of like a shared community. There's something profoundly disconnecting about people who live in their own, you know, epistemological islands that are, they're totally disconnected from each other. Yeah.

Well said. I do think that there's a dearth of explanations in mainstream media for what people are seeing. And I don't mean, how did Charlie Kirk die? Like, what bullet was it? And was there an exploding, you know, all these kinds of technical conversations. But the actual narrative of why this country is the way it is and why things are going the way they're going is still, in my opinion, missing. even from progressive outlets.

There's a kind of general rule that if you address the malaise, you have to address yourself. And I think a lot of mainstream media outlets are part of the same giant corporate mind fuck machine that is unfortunately continuing to make us more and more alone and more like do your own research and figure it out yourself, you know, advanced individualism, the profit motive. A lot of these things are just not well addressed by the kind of corporate mainstay media. So I would just argue that if we gave people a strong and convincing explanation for what is going on right now, let's say a thorough class analysis was available to everyone and was promoted openly without shame on some of these larger outlets. I don't think we would be in quite the same world.

But that's not really the world that we live in. Like it's totally fine for legacy media to essentially criticize TPP USA, but they're unable and they're kind of muzzled in a very very very. specific other way that I think people pick up on. And so I think there's a certain distrust. And then once you don't believe the main story, then, hey, it's a buffet. Then, you know, figure it out for yourself. You're American. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You're an individual. Get your own ideas, you know, make up your own mind. You know, this is just what we live in. I think well said, both of you guys. And I've just noticed over the past couple of years, like basically since and like,

Brandy, you've have been here since the beginning. You know, you are one of, you know, very small group of people that was kind of just like fascinated by this culture like pretty much before anybody else was. And, you know, I've noticed since then that culture has flowed right stream, not downstream, but culture has flowed right stream. And like the more centrist liberals tend to pick up what the right wing is putting down, even if it's they think they're using it to fight online, I guess. So like, I think it's important. to be investigating and debunking and discussing these specific conspiracy theories because I've seen them get picked up by like liberal friends of mine who I'm on fucking Xbox

live chat with and they're going like oh yeah dude no I mean it wasn't the no the guy's a patsy the whoever they arrested no the guy's a patsy jemmy did you see the vest he was wearing you know and you're like oh man I literally just fucking saw jack possobic you know tweeting about And so, like, that's why I think it's important because, like, it flows right stream and we're too, we're too far down. The Overton window, I think, has shifted too much. Like, liberals are no longer protected. Like, there was a time, I think, when, when we might have been a little bit.

Liberals have been, liberals have been feeding on, on privileged sources forever. They've been feeding on news articles that are laundering, like, DOD and agency talking points and hiding, obscuring the sources. is that's like very, very common practice. I would ask a single corporate media outlet to show me that they don't do this. And I think that that's like, that's a big Achilles heel here. Yeah, it's so funny that you mentioned that though. Like I think, and I have been doing this for a long time, right?

And so the podcast that I am most on, I think, is on the media, which is a podcast from WNYC. And I think it's because, not because conspiracy theories and extremism is about the media, but because it is a product in a large part of distrust in the media and us doing media the wrong way. And I think it is a fault of news media, absolutely, that so much of this has grown the way that it has. Yeah, I think there's a certain, it's not even, I think it's, the idea is compromised, right? And I think once people feel something is compromised, they're just going to throw it out. And it is the era now of like, your outlet's wrong. Like your outlet is bad.

My outlet is good. and so we kind of like cling to whatever we believe in. We can, in fact, a lot of arguments these days about the media just come down to, well, your sources, insert here, right? And it's like, I think it's hard to not feel that way. It's like, why would I pay attention to a really good Atlantic article that debunks, I don't know, Q&N or something like that in a very good way when I know that the same week that they're running, like the DSA is the new like a Judeo-Bolshevik threat, you know, that needs to be dismantled by the Democratic Party?

You know, it's very hard for me not to just go, well, that shit's in the Atlantic. I'm not fucking reading that. Why would I, like, expose myself to a possibly deeply tainted point of view? Yeah, I think that's a really popular feeling. And I think at every shop that I've worked at, I've had someone who has said, you know, because I work in corporate media, just blanket will never trust me. At NBC News, it was NBC News. At MS, it's MS.

You know, there's that, I think, tendency. But I do think that there are, like, a lot of my audience is people who seek out me, right? who trust me. And I think that's what you sort of have to, that's what people are doing more and more and more. Absolutely. You were a very special case in that. Thanks, Julie.

What happened? Both because your work is good, but also because you were one of the few people that managed to find themselves in an area where there was budget allocated to do the kind of work that we were also doing. That is extremely rare. That's the reason why we all go, oh, there's so few of us. And like, we all feel like old soldiers or whatever in some like long forgotten war. The Japanese guy who hasn't found out World War II is over or whatever. That's so true.

What I mean by that is that the budget was always extremely limited for this kind of stuff. At first, it was like, don't give it air. It's like, why would we run another article about what the latest stuff is is wrong? Like, we've been running the same article. You know, so there's, there's always going to be like the interaction between the profit motive and who is given budget to even look into this stuff. The reason that we exist at all as a podcast and that we got big at all is because there was such a gap in that market, I suppose, for, you know, for, I've got no, no better way to kind of define it than as a market in that there were just so few people that were being paid to do this, that journalists were grateful to have even a totally independent

podcast come in, you know, and kind of build its own chops and try to find its own way. So, it's really interesting because it's like, how could we, if the media was doing its job, like, in regards to even like Q&ON and and this kind of debunking, I don't think we would be here existing at all. And so I do think that that speaks a lot to like the path. And I feel like maybe these days, what would you say? Would you say there's a bigger budget to address this kind of stuff or are we still at the same place? First of all, you're welcome. No, I think like when I first started at NBC, there was a, you know, we were brought over, Ben and I were brought over from the Daily Beast because they knew this was important when, you know, certain stories were.

would do well. They wanted that. But then they quickly realized that like what, what it means when you get us is that you get all of us. Like you, we, we now live in the swamp. And so so much of what we would pitch would still face those, those roadblocks and barriers. You know, we were paid a salary, but so much wasn't fit for, you know, human consumption, basically through the NBC audience. And so there was a lot of times where we would just like hit these roadblocks. And I remember even at the, in Q&ON, one moment where we had this story on like the YouTubers that were making Q&on sort of big, taking it from 4chan and making it into a thing. And we had done this article and it was doing really well online.

And then they're like, well, let's make TV from it. And the producers of the show that our bosses wanted to get on the air said to us, we're not going to do Q&on on this show. And like with kind of a chip on a shoulder for good reason because they, you know, our television show that grandmother, like everybody watches, like the whole world watches. And I think like part of me is like, and at the time thought, okay, well, I'll see you in six months. This is a thing. It's infecting the world.

And it's going to be big enough at one day that you're going to run to us and say, oh, no, what's Q and on? We have to talk about it. And that's what happened, right? But like, I do think that there is a world in which not all of this stuff should be on, let's say, you know, whatever your nightly news program is should be on the six and seven o'clock news. I think a little bit of not being aware of this is good and right. And I don't know.

I think there is there is an aspect of gatekeeping that I appreciate about about corporate news and about, you know, the legacy news outlets that I think is right. And hopefully I always joke that like my work, I don't want normal people to see it. Like I wish that they wouldn't have to see it because it gets to a point where it's like, okay, now we have to talk about this person because they've killed someone or this movement has, you know, done these dangerous things or it's January 6th and now they, cart me out and I explain it. I feel the same way about this podcast in a lot of ways at like parties and like a family events,

holidays. Yeah. It's the same. I mean, it's actually a really quick, Julian, this leads me to a question that I have for you, Brandy, is that as somebody who has also been, you know, sort of like studying, studying this since the beginning, do you look around as I do and feel like everything is Q and on? Actually, I want to jump in because that's exactly what I was going to say.

Okay, okay. Yeah, go for it. Yeah. Because, Brandy, you're saying, okay, well, the NBC audience, you know, doesn't really need to hear this kind of stuff. But that ignores Russiagate. It ignores the general cooking that the kind of liberals have been doing, that the average, I think, like, watcher of these large mainstream shows, they are becoming more conspiratorial. They are becoming more paranoid.

And they also have been fed large conspiracies that they have still not had a good thorough, like, we're sorry. we should be debunking ourselves. I remember when you could tune into Colbert and you would have like, you know, some lawyer up saying, hey, tomorrow like Trump is going to get arrested for his connections to Russia. What I mean is that the paranoid American mind is not isolated to QAnon and that when we thought we could isolate that, we ignored the fact that everybody was doing some form of it at the same time, that it was a general kind of cultural impulse. Yeah, I mean, I say this thing to reporters a lot now that I say everybody's a disinformation

reporter like every every single story like everyone should be reporting every single story should have context about like why you know who is this liar lying to me and why are they lying and who's profiting off this lie like that should just be baked in to at like this is just a media criticism right like that should be baked in to every story that we tell so yeah and I do think I do think that the world has gotten far more paranoid I used to say that like you know the right that people would be like why do you only do conspiracy things? series on the right. And it was like, because they have won the game. They, they, like, they are doing it the best. I don't know. It's, it's, that's going the farthest. Like, that is where the fire is and I have a hose. And so I'm going to direct it there right now. But like, you know, with Epstein files and with, there's just, everything is Twitter files. I mean, every story, every single, everywhere I look from the left and the right, like, people are just for a good reason. Like there was, sorry, I'm on a tangent, but there was this someone in my shop sent me a, and Instagram real last night. And it was this woman reading this, you know, tip that she had gotten. She's not a journalist, but a tip that she had gotten that said that there was, he said, I'm in the army or I'm in the military. And, you know, we heard this thing about a secret plan to hurt and kill immigrants and that we were involved. And then, you know, the plan was squashed. But I'm still afraid it's going to happen. And I'm like, maybe. Like, it's one. Like the world is so on fire and our country is on fire. And it's headed by a person.

and that's doing terrible things to, you know, immigrants and minorities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that, like, conspiratorial culture is thriving because the world and this country specifically is so, I don't know, ripe for it. Like, it feels true, man, right? Like, I'm not sure if it's true, but a lot of it feels like it could be true. But, like, I think it's messier than ever. But, again, like, my question to you, I think it's so important that we, like, do a hard line of what we know and what we don't know and how we can figure out the difference because in the

middle and that unknowing, there's just so many people that are grifting off of it and and making money and amassing power that eventually hurts other people around these lies. And I don't know how to, especially when it becomes such a political weapon, the conspiracy theory, I don't know, I don't know how to stop that. And this is an existential question. Yeah, it's difficult because you could basically be like, well, everything that we just heard today about the negotiation with a country at which we're at war. Actually, that's just to boost stock prices so that there can be a pump and dump over the weekend. And that would be like, true.

And the problem is that, like, everyone is left to just read the marketing. Like, the best you're going to get is not lied to, but it's all marketing. So I feel like what you're describing is the entire economy. You're like, well, the gray area is full of grifters. That is the entire American economy, I would argue. That the main export is this kind of like marketing, that everything is marketing. that everything is marketing and everything is just like spin. And so you cannot trust a word that anybody says.

And I would argue that's an overall decent assessment of like where we're at. Not to give up and put my hands up, but just say that's at least like if you're, if you're someone who can barely pay attention to the situation, don't trust anybody is a pretty good way to operate these days. Even us. You know, we're asking you for five bucks a month. No, no, no, Jake. Don't. You know, to kind of say, to throw our hands up and go, hey, look,

We're just trying to make sense of like what's real and what's not. But you know what two hours of that? It's going to cost you. I think the format of this conversation so far and like the fact that we were able to have it shows that we are independent editorially because it's like, yes, Brandy, let's get into it. You know, instead of like, oh, oh, I don't want to jump into this. I was thinking this is such a like really like a fascinating conversation and just like, it always feels special, I think, when you're with the original, when you're with the original crew,

Whenever, you know, we talk to Ben or Jared or Will and, you know, sorry, anybody I'm forgetting. I'm just, like, kind of riffing. But, like, you know, like when you see an old friend after a long time and you kind of jump right into the fucking business. Like, there's no small talk and you're like, and you're like, yeah, like, it's been eight years. Like, let's talk about how things fucking are, dude. But also there's stuff we've always wondered, like, about each other, you know. Well, I have. I don't wonder.

But I don't do a lot of wondering. What do you mean you don't want? I just don't. I wonder about. If we're moving on, we don't need to know if you wonder or don't wonder. Travis, please jump in because either you can get us back on track or you can also answer Brandy. Because you've got to answer Brandy. Otherwise, I'm going to use this gun.

What? Sorry, I'm trying to raise the stakes. It's called soap opera entertainment. I think I hear someone calling my name. I'll just. I do not, in fact, have a gun. Please, Travis. You know, I was there, when you wrote about some of the believers and conspiracy theories

related to Charlie Kirk's assassination. You did actually watch some people reconsider their beliefs. And I'm curious what led to these kinds of breakthroughs. I mean, was it, was it the actual, like, forensic evidence? Was it be able to, like, see, like, you know, the case made in a context outside of social media that sort of made them perhaps reconsider what they were seeing from sources like Candace Owens? I mean, so, like, y'all know so well. And it is really good being here with y'all.

It does feel like there was a war or there is a war. And, you know, we've lost some good ones. Yeah. And it's nice. It's nice to be with people who get it. It really, really is. So even if we don't always agree, it's just nice to be with people who just get the war that we're waging. But conspiracists live on a spectrum, right?

Especially conspiracy consumers live on a spectrum too, where I met, I don't know, maybe 30 people outside the courthouse and inside the courtroom who adhered to some sort of conspiracies. belief about Tyler Robinson being a Patsy. And most of them that I talked to, because I would come out at lunch and say, what did you think of the evidence? Almost all of them said, I thought it was weak sauce. You know, oh, well, I think I had seen that before somewhere. That doesn't, that was so fuzzy. You couldn't even see the video. What? I thought it was going to show him, you know, actually taking a shot, like, oh, did you know that Lances? They would always find some sort of way to poke a hole in it, except there was one thing that happened a couple of times that really tracks with what I've seen in other conspiracy theories. And that was, I'll give you an example, that was the personal. And one woman I had met, we called them the freedom ladies because they were, they came to court wearing Charlie Kirk's freedom shirt that he was, like the one that he was shot and killed in. Seems weird. I mean, they're fans of Charlie Kirk. You know, that's how they show there. It's just hard because the mental image of that shirt just, all I can see is the neck. Like,

all I can see is that horrible video. It's like the tent, right, that they set up a Amfest, like to the TPSA people, like they didn't, they saw it as a memorial as a, you know, and so did the people going to the tent. But other, you see it from outside, you're like, that's dark. Like, that's really dark. Driving my car with no top on through Dallas. Yeah. Yeah. To celebrate my hero JFK. Yeah. It's, you know, well, yeah. Anyway, so I'm talking to these ladies and one of them, and I thought they were going to be there as a friend of, Kirk and Erica Kirk and TPSA and they had questions. You know, they didn't know the official narrative.

They thought that the case against Tyler Robinson was weak. And then one of the women who couldn't have gone up to the courtroom because she didn't get a wristband that day, she said that she was just hanging out in the lobby and she had seen Erica Kirk because Erica came in too. And she said, when I saw Erica evil, evil, just exuding from her. And I was like, whoa, that is such a surprise to hear. And this lady was like in tears. Like she really was like, and she was a normal lady.

Utah, you know, relatively normal seeming. She, you know, was from Utah. She had gone. She was at UVU that day. She said she had gone to therapy since she was really shaken up by this whole thing. But she thought Erica was in on it. And then the fourth day of the hearing, she did secure a seat. And she sat right in front of Erica Kirk and Kathy Kirk, Charlie Kirk's mother.

And so she got. to be a witness to Erica and Kathy sobbing, to them hugging each other, whispering to each other. She said that she heard a conversation where, you know, Erica kept playing with the bangles on her bracelet and that she told her mother-in-law that she had gotten it as an anniversary present from Charlie and that she broke down in tears again. At one point, Erica handed a tissue to a woman, one of the freedom ladies in front of her because they were crying. She handed a tissue to her. And so when we got out of the courthouse that day, I said, oh, you know, I saw that you had an interaction with her. And then it was complete 180.

The Freedom Lady said I, who had just said she was evil a couple of days earlier, said, I know I was wrong. I feel so awful for believing that. I know that she loved Charlotte. She could not have done this. Like just a complete turnaround. Well, that's good. Yeah.

No. Well, yes. And no, right? It speaks so much to like our ability and our need for like interaction with people and that human interaction just totally supersedes all sense. And, you know, any sort of logic. we can have because it doesn't like she'd be crying just to put on an act like why would it doesn't how do you know you don't know no fact was different from you when you walked in the first day to the second day but she just changed her whole mind and you know i mean i've had that experience where tucker carlson said terribly untrue things about me on his show and then i had interacted with one of the people who was attacking me and my family online and i you know reached out and i was like this is not true it's not happening we had a conversation and she's like i'm so sorry let me take that down and it's like i can't talk to everybody. You know, Erica Kirk can't cry personally in front of everybody, but I do think that that is a, that is the way to change somebody's mind really quickly.

I mean, I think it speaks to like, you know, what really makes these stories compelling is just, just the dramatic narrative of heroes and villains. And like, it was like if you, if you think someone, think someone is a, is a villain and then they must have been in on the plot to do evil things. But if you actually meet them and somehow you see their humanity and you see that perhaps your impression of them was wrong, then, okay, they can't be part of this plot, so this conspiracy isn't true. So it's like, it's like it has more to do with like your general interpersonal sort of like feelings about individuals rather than any sort of like a pile of evidence that sort of convinces people to these conspiracy theories. Yeah, I was, it just reminds me of RFK's book, American Values, I think it is. And like the first line of it, I'm going to misquote it, but it was so shocking to me that I remember it often. It was something like, you know, I learned early on that the world was made up of gods and monsters,

good and evil. And it's like, no, it's not. What the hell? Like, it's not at all. Like, that is your whole problem. I think maybe he just watched the movie gods and monsters or something and was like, and was like, I like the way that sounds. I think I'm miscoding it.

I think it was like good and evil. But it was something that's like, that's the problem. Like, it's so much of these conspirators. theories, like you said, Travis, I think could be, it's explained in this, like, simple way that's not how the world works. People are complicated and not just that person's evil and that person's good. But yes, I agree. It's true that, I mean, if you could, if you consume the general, like, media, it's hard not to come away from it thinking black and white, uh, from the, from like entertainment movies to like online opinions and stuff like that. It is not exactly a time right now where people are looking for lack of clarity. gray area, complexity. I think it's, it is sad, yeah. I just find that so boring, too. Like, as a storyteller, which is like, you know, my job because I find that to be the most effective way to get people to understand something. I just, it's a really, really boring narrative to say that, you know, this is a bad guy doing a bad thing and leave it at that. Yeah, totally. I mean,

but ambiguity has always been kind of anathema to the American experience. 100%. Yeah. I mean, like, that was like sort of like what got me, like, sort of curious about Q&O. in the first place and then also like out of it you know out of it to a place where I wanted to study it from an objective sort of like critical standpoint you know like this woman who who went in like you know and and was like you know I was like totally wrong like at the very least I think it's it's good to see somebody still able to like change their mind and then admit to you like especially if she knew that you were a journalist that she was like oh yeah you know what like I was totally wrong about that like I find that so many people.

especially online and like you said, out in the world, it is so different. You can say anything you want about Erica Kirk online, but when she hands you a tissue, you know, when she hands you a tissue and you see the tears streaming down her face, it's like, it's harder to bully somebody, like when they're in front of you and you see them be hurt and affected by your words. What's interesting is that her conclusion then is I was totally wrong about this thing. Instead of actually there is a subtle and decent art. argument that Erica Kirk is quote unquote in on it because of the entire ecosystem of the

grift at TPUSA and what followed the death. And so you can see something there that isn't an absolute, right? It's not like, oh, she was in on killing her husband. It's like, of course not. But she is now in on the ecosystem, the feeding frenzy, the ecosystem of rewards that comes around the creation of a left or of a right wing martyr like Charlie Kirk. So there is a subtle thing there and the person is going, well, this person is an evil person. And then they're like, nope, I was totally 100% wrong. And once again, we completely avoid the middle ground, that gray area where you could argue that in an absolute sense, yes, but of course not in the way that you think, which is almost always the answer to like a Q&N believer or something like that. Yeah, I mean,

I try to stress too that like the part that has to come before you tell the story of these conspiracy theories is that Turning Point USA, including, you know, Benny Johnson did a really harrowing speech. at America Fest where he said, this was supposed to bring us together. This was supposed to have us against all the trans people. And this was supposed to have us break. The FBI should be breaking down doors to Antifa and trans people. And I'm like, whoa.

So like, yes, these conspiracy theories are very likely untrue. There's no evidence for them. But also, if these weren't there, if this rift wasn't happening, if Candace Owens wasn't leading a charge to dismantle, you know, or to infect the whole narrative with these conspiracy theories, then what would be happening is that led by Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance and the whole arm of the federal government, they would be using Charlie Kirk's death effectively to, more than they already are, come down on their political so-called enemies of Antifa,

the people that they just dissent in general, LGBTQ people, especially trans people. Like, that's a really important thing to understand is that, like, without this thing that I, think is bad, not believing this truth about the conspiracy theories. Beyond that, if that wasn't there, then they would have a free lane to do real harm. And so that is the whole, that is the whole nuance of it. It's, it's a complicated thing. Yeah, I think, I think this ecosystem of, like, telling, you know, simple stories of heroes and villains, I think is part of what made Kandesowen such a success, they're tabloidy style, you know, it's not, it's not merely, you know, And sort of like, rather than kind of being gossipy about like, oh, who's cheating on who or whatever

and who screwed whoever and whatever relationship. It's about, you know, who's in on what plot. And she sends like, you know, often the heroes and the stories are the lone content creator on the social media trying to get, you know, a hidden truth revealed. And that's just, I don't know, that's just really, really, you know, that's just really, really compelling. But that's the thing that I would argue is that there is a hidden truth. Like America is a deeply delusional country that does not want to. face its own history and its own secret history of essentially psychological operations, propaganda domestically and internationally, a thousand military bases. There is an octopus

controlling the world and it's us and we don't want to look at that. We don't, you know, and I think that so there is a hidden truth, unfortunately. And that's why I think telling people that the malaise is wrong is the is an approach that won't work. And no, I don't think it's not like right or wrong, right? It's that like there's a voice that's saying, And it's people that were yelling at me like, you know, well, you can talk about these truthers, but like Elizabeth Lane and, you know, all the folks who are yelling at me outside in the line saying like, oh, you believe that the government is good. Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. You believe that the government is good. Right? It's like, do you don't believe in the JFK conspiracy? Like, which one? Like, what are we talking about? And I think that we can be better. We can be smarter. We can sit with a with a question and say, what do I know to be true and what do I not know? And how can I figure it out? And who, you know, what? What are my best sources of information?

Like, it's, it's pie in the sky. But, like, I'm a librarian. Like, that's how I got into this work, which is a very, very weird way to get into, you know, journalism. But, like, I think it is a public service. Like, I, it is a little pie in the sky, but I feel very strongly about it that, like, I just want to get people good information. And so, like, every story is somebody coming up to me at the reference desk.

And, like, you know, the world is not perfect. And I am not perfect. But this is the best information that I can get you right now. And I think seeking out that information. And, you know, keep asking questions. that will reveal some of those hidden truths, Julian. But, like, though that is the mission. Yeah, totally.

It's getting harder every single day. Absolutely. And showing people, too, that, like, you can be satisfied with not know. That, like, you as a person can be okay with, like, maybe not knowing the full story, like, the full story. Like, you know, a lot of people are, I remember after the Collins documentary came out, a lot of people were like, oh, so, like, what do you think? Do you think that, like, it's him or do you think it's not? Or, like, what do you think? And I was like, at the time, I was like, you know, I think this is the best information that we, this is the most information that we have available and like here's some like unanswered questions.

And like that was, that's like really satisfying for me. And, you know, I think like that sets a good example to that, that it's okay to not know everything. Sure, yes. To rest in the ambiguity. To rest in the ambiguity, exactly. That's a much nicer way to say what I was. No. That's a beautiful way to put that.

Yeah. but that's tough to do and I think that's a good example. I think I try to do this. I'm with you, Brandy. I try to do this and just get people like decent information. You know, the best information is possible. Don't lie to people. Don't try to like, I don't know, like just sell them a false bill of goods.

That feels just like cheap and unfair like in a world where like that's basically all that there is on offer. I think a lot of people like I did an interview with Doom Scroll where I was asked like what my intentions were with this other. podcast that I do superstructure. And there was a kind of horror when I wouldn't kind of agree to the premise. And I was like, well, I'm not actually interested in where my listeners coming from and where they're going to go because of what they listen to. I'm not here to manipulate. I'm simply here to as best I can lay out those facts and then allow you the freedom, hopefully, to not feel like I'm pushing you in some direction. And I think that really, it was almost like incomprehensible. It's like, what do you mean? What's the marketing? Like, what's the marketing? Like, what's the marketing?

what product are we trying to get people to adopt? You know, there was this misunderstanding of like what I was saying as nihilism. And I'm like, I'm not nihilistic. I simply don't believe it's my right to manipulate my audience and to think of their path on some form of like journey that I'm trying to manipulate. I can tell you about my journey. I can tell you that this is how I do the research, that these are the people that we pay for the research.

This is how we get by our information. Here are our sources. You can go and kind of review them if you'd like. But no, I'm not invested in. whether I'm able to convince people of something or essentially manipulate them emotionally to come to some sort of conclusion that would make me feel good because I've done my job being a propagandist. I love that you interrogate the question. I feel like I need to do that more. I'm always like, how can I answer this stupid question? And not. Well, you should do it recklessly. Yeah, I will never come in as hot as you. I don't think my temperature goes to that setting. Oh, God. I love that you're in the world. I wish I could help that. But it's not my name.

nature. Yeah, I mean, I suppose I always kind of approached like what I do in a similar way. It's like I have zero control over what anyone chooses to believe. I do have control. I can explain what I believe and what I think about certain claims and how I came to those conclusions. I can explain my process. And I think it's convincing for reasons that I'll explain. But, but I have zero power over what anyone chooses to believe. And so I don't, you know, I don't want to make people believe. leave things for the same reason. I don't want to move the moon with my mind. It's just not something I can do, really. Which makes you, by the way, extremely valuable and unique in an environment in which everyone has accepted that marketing has to be a part of what you do. And so you have to imagine your potential client and you have to imagine a final result you want from that client selling them on the product and you have to imagine a funnel to get them from point A to point B. And, you know, I mean, it's like, that is exhausting. So it is what makes somebody, I think, valuable. and like worth listening to is when they really aren't concerned with that or when they are aware of that, but that is not their goal.

Or it's their overt goal to keep that out of what they do. I also want to talk to you, Brandy, about John Aaron Bray. This is a independent researcher from Oklahoma, like we mentioned, who has developed the theory that Charlie Kirk was killed or at least simultaneously attacked by a hidden explosive in Kirk's microphone that he was wearing on. the day that he died. So this is, I mean, I like this one too. I've mentioned it before. And one of the reasons I like this conspiracy theory is like it feels like a real classic conspiracy theory in which sort of assembles a pile of a large sort of assemblage of evidence and claims that are sometimes very technical and elaborate, but don't really add up to what he's claiming. So could you walk us through this, the exploding microphone theory in the simplest form? I sure can. I'm obsessed with this

theory and this creator. And so I, we have a video coming out about it, I think, this week. And I think it, before I do, just entertain me, if you will, after JFK was assassinated, there's this umbrella man theory that I'm sure y'all are aware of. And it's this, this idea that, you know, this guy that was holding an umbrella on the side, when the motorcade went by that day, somehow either signaled to a different gunman somewhere that that was the moment to take the shot, because it was not raining. He's just because this guy with a black umbrella. But there was another version of this conspiracy theory that suggested that there was a kind of dart gun in the umbrella that shot and killed Kennedy. And so, you know, some 12 years later when the House held hearings about this,

they brought this guy, Lewis Witt, in front of Congress and they had him bring his umbrella. He had gone mostly unnoticed until I think it was like the Dallas Morning News or someone out at him. And so he was brought before Congress with his umbrella. And they said, you know, show us a umbrella. Will you open it? He's like, I don't want to be on video opening this umbrella. It'll lead to a bunch of new thing. I just, I don't want to do it. So the Senate aide came over, opened the umbrella. They said, has it ever had a gun? He's like, no. But this guy, this creator of this magazine, the Grassy Noel Gazette, had done all these diagrams of how you would fit a projectile, a dark gun, a bullet into this, how it could be used as a weapon. And so it was pretty popular. And that's how I fit John Bray in historically in his exploding microphone. The idea about behind it is that John Bray was watching Charlie Kirk be shot and he thought to himself, that just looks weird. And he thought and thought and he said, he came up with this idea that, you know, you remember the pager thing that Israel did where they put explosive in pagers and assassin. Right. So he remembered something. Yes. So he's like, that what if, what if that's what

happened. And so he's like, well, clearly not a, I don't see a page or anywhere, but look at that. There's a microphone there. Could something have been an explosive device be put into that? And so John Bray, God love him, went to the shed with his Instagram account and his camera and started doing these like at home experiments where he is really not good, but like he would take a pipe and basically show that he's like, well, if his mic is here and there was a wound here, it could have gone like that. Okay. So that's step one in this grand scheme. And then he started building little explosive devices in those little square road mics.

And he made up these pig carcass sort of belly things. And he inserted the device in there and showed that, you know, to his liking that this is probably what happened. It made a simple look, this is a square. And the bullet or the wound in Charlie Kirk kind of looked like a square. Clearly that's it. Then John Bray, our hero. He decided to get really fancy with it. And what he did was he uploaded a bunch of forensic papers to Grock and to Clawed.

And he just found a bunch of forensic papers, I guess, on the internet, uploaded them all and then gave the AI agents the direction like you are a forensic investigator. Look at all these videos of Charlie Kirk. I'm going to upload them. And then I want you to vibe code a website that shows your theory of the case, that it's not a bullet, that it was actually a projection. So then we have this vibe-coded website that goes along. And that is the package of evidence that John Bray presents. And at first, he was kind of like shrugged off. No one really listened to poor John Bray. But then slowly people started because you need content. And so they started having him on. He was on Trigger Smart. He was on a couple of like of the lower level creators. Apparently he got in touch with Candace Owens. He was feeding her this information behind the scenes. But even she was like, I'm not touching that. So we didn't see her really mention him hard. until January. But since then, because again, running out of content, that now his theory has somehow, you know, been elevated to the preeminent theory behind the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories. Bond, bond, this is Q. You are in a very new world. You must understand that we are creating

an explosive lav mic. You will be faced with many sidewalk zoomers and you will have the tools to take them on. Maybe even that subway takes guy. Yeah, this one has actually trickled into like my liberal, like one of my liberal friends who I was, I was playing Xbox with. And they also believed it was some kind of device in a vest. It was like a spin-off of that. And I asked him, like, what did he, I was like, why do you think that like somebody would do that? And I think his, his reasoning was that it was a false flag is that it was like, oh, you make it look like, you know, they executed, you know, one of theirs so that it would justify them instituting martial law. I mean, he had some sort of, you know, reasoning behind it. But I was,

was like, oh, wow. I was like, that one, that one stuck. It's like people aren't used to seeing somebody getting executed right. It's not like Call of Duty where a couple little exes appear over them and they go like, do, do, do, do a couple numbers. And so they're like, hmm, that looked weird. Hmm, that didn't look how I thought it was going to look. I don't know. Like, I feel like in every A24 movie now, it's, it's like the carnage is always actually shown. I've seen so many movies now. They want to show people getting shot right in the head. Like, it's crazy how much more gore there is in movies these days. Not even, but like when Charlie Kirk was killed, like just having, I mean, I must, I saw it for work, but everybody saw that video. And like so many people just saw it

played immediately, right? And like, I've been thinking, I mean, whatever, I think about a lot of things. But like, when I was young, you had to seek out gore on the internet, right? You had to really, and it was hard. You had to look for the Daniel Pearl beheading video. Like you had, like, rotten dot com. Yeah, like it was like a thing. And then when you found it, at least me, I remember, like there were moments in like early internet experience that were like, oh, God, that was really upsetting. And I don't know if it's really upsetting anymore. I think that there is a desensitization that like speaks to what you're saying about that that we see in movies and stuff too, where I, I think that people are like watching this stuff on repeat in a way that's like dark. Yeah, I definitely

avoid that video, like, but I have seen it a few times and it's hard to not look at and not want to see it at least a second time just to go, what the fuck did I just see? But I still have like a visceral disgust at, you know, watching that level of gore, especially in real life. I was in college, like, with a fresh Dell, you know, dude, you know, you're getting it. Dude, you got a Dell and internet access and like on my own for the first time. And at a time when the internet was like pretty new. And I remember like the days of like live leak and I'm sure I think live leak's probably still around, but like rotten live leak. And I remember seeing those same videos. And I've described it to people like since as like a piece of me dying with the person that like it like it really affected me to the point where like I've become a lot more sensitive to gore in my, you know, as I've gotten older. And it is very frightening to me. The, the access and. and almost persistence at which you were shown that, especially if you were on Elon's Twitter. Yeah, and like boomers and like Christian people.

Like everybody saw it. And I'm just, I don't know. I don't know how to, I'm not explaining myself while. It just, it was really, it really bothers me. It really bothers me a lot. There will be no place in heaven for any of us. Right. We have committed like the cardinal sin of, of I, the I, we have done too much with it.

I mean, yeah, I mean, I remember in like middle school where like the existence of videos in which people died was like an urban legend. It was something that was hypothesized existed in like movies like faces of death. Yeah, I'm just going to say the VHS is. Yeah. But now we live in a world where they've taken faces of death and commercialized it into like a reboot that's like a narrative. Yeah. Like they're, oh, oh, it's playing. We're just Plato folded.

We've dropped it on the ground. There's so much grud in it and a couple of bugs, too. And you're just, oh, you're stuffing it back in the package. Some of it's dry. But you're right. That was not just like, you know, weird gore that's known about by your weird friend with a bad home life. It's like just like just everybody is like, sees this content and like watches it over and over and over again

in order to like, for example, prove this, an attempt to prove. this exploding microphone theory. Around other mass shootings, there's been a question of like, do we show the bodies, right? And for a long time, it was like, no, that's too awful. It's too. And now it's just like, we stopped having that conversation because X just shows us the bodies. Like we just, now the plot, we just all watch the bodies. It's, it's honestly, it's exhausting. I agree. I don't like it. No, yeah, like we're all in the, uh, yeah, like, we're all in the, uh, yeah, strapped in the clockwork orange chair now. Just, just big fan. But we've also all seen what happened in Palestine, which I think we had to be shown those bodies, or else nobody would believe it.

You know, so there are, you know, I'm not going to complain about that specifically. That's different, right? Yeah, it is. But, I mean, I think that people have seen man-made horrors beyond their understanding, like, through this genocide that we are actively participating in with our tax money. I don't disagree. Yeah, me neither. I definitely, I have some friends who are, like, very pro-Israel. real and are very vocal about it.

And I'm like, they clearly just haven't seen, like the moment I saw, because by the, it was all over X, there was no choice. But like, I'm glad that I did because I changed my mind about what was going on. So I agree that it's different, Brandy, obviously. But I think it's important that I wanted to agree with you, Julian. Yeah, it's interesting because on X now, like the For You page is an absolute, I mean, it's insane and disgusting. It'll be like sexual stuff, violence, like anything you want.

And then the only thing that we'll be like, do you really want to see this? Are pictures of mangled Palestinian people in the latest round of attacks. It's the only thing that it's still censoring for me on X. It's showing me the horrors that I do not want to see. Obviously, tons of like Onlyfans stuff and sex stuff. But then it's like, well, are you really sure that you want to see this? Which is the only righteous, I mean, like use of like X being so non-censored. would be to show people where their tax dollars are going.

Well, because it's not bearing witness to violence as like a moral duty. It's being entertained by violence. Exactly. Yeah. Oh, here is some non-intertaining violence. We've detected non-entertaining violence. Would you like to see this? Are you sure?

Because we can show you some other gore that's a lot less fraught. Yeah. It's like, this isn't something that you would see on our crazy-ass videos. Yeah. And I mean, not to bring it back to Candace, but I mean, part of what she is. did was she spoke to people who were witnessing this with their own eyes when we saw after October 7th and Israel's response to it. And she said immediately, she's like, this isn't right. I can't, like, it doesn't feel right. I can't, you know, October 7th was awful. Also, you can't just have a

blockade and not feed people and take them away and bomb them. And that's wrong. And so just that, like, I said that like she often says the things that no one's willing to say. And at the time, it felt like no one on the right was willing to say, that's wrong. that feels bad and I don't like it. And so that just, it was an immediate sort of line that was like, Candace Owen sounds reasonable right now. And that's a problem, right? Big time.

Big time. And she got a lot of people to side with her on that issue and then, you know, took it far beyond and leaned far into anti-Semitic tropes and and conspiracy theories and blood libel. Like she just, she took it to a place that's not right and not true. And unfortunately, she put all those people, she took a lot of those people who, an immediate reaction was like, no, Israel has gone too far. That's not, that's not commensurate with, you know,

that's not an equal of reaction or that's, you know, babies should not be killed, you know, that crazy idea. She would say that and she took those people and she brought them over to Lala land into this like lunatic planet with her. Yeah, Frankism and shit. Yeah. That's, that is like the most insidious thing about conspiracy theories is that when they hit at grain of truth or the broken clock is right twice a day,

you can snag reason. people. And once you've shown them one truth, they're more willing to believe. That's why I get so mad at like people, like, even within our sphere who will say things like, see, I told you so, or like, you know, be like, look, like, because you're, you're setting it up that you have the ability to predict something and that you're trying to enlist a following because of that, because people are hoping to know before everybody else because the person that they're I think that's real insidious, and I see it in a lot of places, like, in the, like, social media, sort of, like, you know, journalism and podcast ecosystem.

And it fucking sucks, because, like, we'd be making so much more money if we were fucking, if we were just lying to people all the time, telling them that we knew exactly what was going to happen. Evil Jake, I like it. He even has an accent. Hey, hey, evil Jake, do you want to start a side podcast with me? Evil Jake. Evil Jake. Yeah, I've been pushed. I've been pushed to my, to my wits end. Yeah, how much of you, I guess, dove into the technical evidence that John Burray presents for

his theories? Because, like, I remember reading, he was talking a lot about, like, thoradic resonances of the human body. And there's so much, I guess, like, stuff that's like, you know, I guess he has a background as an engineer. And there's stuff that's like so technical as, like, beyond most people. It's beyond him. Yes. Yes. It's like, it feels like, Yeah, he goes into these rabbit holes that, you know, that sound very CSI. But like when I looked into it, I found out like he, for example, got wrong the resonance that like the human torso makes when it's been struck and like all these sorts of things that like are really kind of like, you know, complicated and require you to kind of like dig

into the scientific literature in order to even know. Yeah, I guess like, yeah, I guess like how much of his theory is really rests upon this kind of like hyper-technical pile of nonsense. Yeah, it's the same thing as like. you know, when RFK misquotes a study, and it's like, it's not for a normal person listening, it's like, well, he's got a study that says that, right? And so, you know, the only thing I know how to do is say, okay, well, you are quoting this Farnbeck optical algorithm as like the main idea behind he's saying like he looks, he uses this optical algorithm. That's all, when you look at

his website, you see all like the color around the videos. And he's like, see that red? That somehow proves that it's an explosive or something. And so I called up, Gunnar Farnbeck, who came up with the optical algorithm that Mr. Bray uses. And, you know, he basically said this is nonsense. Like, you can't come to any of these conclusions by using the algorithm. Like, it doesn't make sense. He's like, I don't even know how he came to this hypothesis using my algorithm. I called up a lot of forensic experts from the bullet sound that John Bray talks about.

I talked to this guy who's an expert in the forensics of wearable devices. He also said it was nonsense. So it's hard to say like what part of it is nonsense. It's all nonsense. It's just he put it all in clod. It's just AI fever dream. And it's not real. It's not good science.

And so you can, you know, in this special, I trot out all these people who say, this is nonsense. This is stupid. This is wrong. But like at the end of the day, I don't, I was convinced. I don't know. I don't know if it's going to be the, it's certain. This will be the thing. Everyone will watch my video.

And then they'll say, oh, now just like the. The Freedom Lady. Brandy is right. I was so wrong. And I take back. Right? Yeah. It could be no other way. I talked a little bit about this in the intro, but I'm curious what you make of the strange position that T.P. USA is in, which they're desperate to get people to believe the official narrative. And it's like, I've mentioned this before, but one of the things that really got me interested in QAnon made me realize it was something that it was worth paying closer attention to was a fact that. that on Charlie Kirk's Twitter account, he amplified a Q&on narrative about how Trump was arresting human traffickers at a much greater rate than Obama was. That wound up being nonsense. It wound up being something like I traced to a QAnon promoter who misunderstood some of the statistics he was seeing.

But now, but now there's a situation where like now they're on the defensive position where they are trying to be like, I don't know, the establishment, trying to act as if it's like, no, no, no. Like the, you know, prosecutors have a strong case against Robinson and to not trust these, these fringe figures online. So like, how exactly are they navigating them? I mean, it's like I, there's a little bit of like, you know, a feeling of chickens coming home to Roos here for me. But, but like how are they, how are they handling the situation? Yeah, poorly because what else can they do? I mean, they're, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like, the only right move here, and I mean that right in a moral sense more than a what will be beneficial to them. But like there has to be from my standpoint. Like if it's

me, there has to be a moment where you come to Jesus. I've had this conversation with lots of people inside Turning Point USA. I've had this conversation on the record with Jack Posobach. And, you know, I'm like, you're the Pizza Gate guy. How can you possibly, how can you possibly now argue for, for calm and for you know, for logic and for, you know, consideration of the family of a conspiracy and, of a person in the middle of a conspiracy. And I think that, like, they're just, they're trying to do all of the same things that they've always done,

except with this one. So, like, you have Benny Johnson, who the morning that he arrived to the courtroom had just done his show. And the A block with Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Oh, my God. And then the B block was, I'm going to the hearing today.

And, like, then he was on Fox News that night, urging people to just believe in the facts. And it's like, how dare you, bro? Like, how dare you want us to consider Erica Kirk but not Seth Rich's parents, it doesn't work that way. And so unless there is some sort of come-to-Jesus moment, I just don't think they'll never have a place to stand. They're just on quicksand.

I mean, the Charlie Kirk spread conspiracy theories about Butler, Pennsylvania, about the shooting at Butler, about vaccines, about Haitians eating dogs and cats. Like, we can go, I can go forever. He always took the side of the conspiracy theorist. And if he didn't take their side outright, he at least winked at them or used those. conspiracy theories to promote his right-wing agenda. And so they're in a tough place and I don't see how they win. Yeah, yeah. It's like it's essentially impossible to like, it's like everyone is like illegitimate and corrupt except for us and you should listen to these, these small creators and don't

trust the mainstream media or like the courts or anything like that, any other, any other kind of like source of information except in this one instance. And this one particular instance, I'm going to carve out one exception because, because like, you know, he was our founder and therefore you should like just treat this particular story as the correct single narrative that you should believe and ignore everyone else. Yeah, right. It's unsustainable. It doesn't work. So I feel like you can't just do this kind of like, you know, distrust everything except for this one, except for this one instance. Yeah, it's the same problem that like RFK is feeling right now with his Maha folks that Cash Patel experience is experiencing that Dan Bongino experience. It's like if you say there's a conspiracy theory everywhere

and then you're put in charge and you say actually, no, uh, it's cool. Like nobody, nobody believes you, right? Like, you can't, you can't do that. And finally, I feel like we were talking about this before, but like there's been a death of shame and a death of consequences. And this is, like, the one sort of instances, maybe outside the courts where, like, you can't do that. You don't get to get away with that. And it really has, like, been a thorn and in the sides of a lot of people who spread these conspiracy theories that now have amassed some power. Yeah, it's so funny because there was, like, briefly the belief that they could do the dance where it's like, don't trust the government, but they are in government.

And it's like, you're not going to be able to thread that needle. Let me tell you, good luck with that one. And of course, they got a ton of pushback. And they all seem pretty bitter about it. Yeah, I bet it does not feel good. Yeah. Reaping, sewing, et cetera. The consequences of your actions.

Yeah. Not that I'm delighting in it. We would never say that. Yeah, I just think it's just an interesting dynamic when, you know, it's like, I feel like they operated from a. presumption of they would like always be always be the underdog you know always be in the position where they were you know on the outside looking in and therefore you know fostering distrust of like I guess mainstream legitimizing facts finding sources like the courts but then all of a sudden they

needed these these sources they became these sources they ascended to the power and like it's the dog that caught the car heavy is the head what is it heavy is the head that wears the crown is that the right yeah yeah heavy is the jaw that caught the car tickling is the pigs who are in the mud nice we did it y'all brought it back full circle yeah so yeah any like final thoughts before we let you go about this ecosystem and guess candace owen's future as a conspiracist entrepreneur because i feel like

although she's she's the future unfortunately of this particular area yeah i think she's the new alex jones right like she will probably have a long career with this sort of new band of conspiracy consumers that are a lot of women, a lot of true crime, gossip, right wingish folks. I think she's, she's in it for the long haul. TPSA, I'm not so sure, but I'm just so glad to be here. Thanks for having me, guys. It's so interesting if you had told me, hey, the next Alex Joan will be a black woman. I would have been like, what the fuck are you talking about? These are people who complain about like black people in the Odyssey or whatever, you know, like they're inherently not going to like that.

She'll do that too. Yeah. Yes. She does. Of course. She plays to all of those things. She'll do that too. But also she's bringing in a whole new audience.

You know that there are aunties and like kind of gray area, people who don't relate to political sides. And there's so many people, I think, that have been introduced to it just because she isn't like Alex Jones. They don't have to look at a yelling, like, drunk tomato. And, you know, she does have like a certain career. She knows how to key. Like, she knows how to key.

And, like, a lot of people are connecting with it. I've had friends that I thought would never who were like, hey, do you listen to her? She's cool. I was like, oh, God. She's really good. She's a really, really good showman. She's just, she's got a delivery that makes it feel like a friend. She is the Oprah of Alex Joneses.

She's that star quality, unfortunately. And she is using it for evil. Do you think she'll, like, get like a big studio and stuff? stuff sort of like the Comtown guys did like get a bit like sort of like instead of kind of because as far as I know she sort of has this very nice like presentation where she sits in front of the laptop right but do you think she would go for like a daytime television style setup like Oprah to further like legitimize this sort of the medium that feels like that feels like it'd be a win for her but I don't know

existence thank you which I often do do by the way yeah unfortunately Yeah, I mean, well, I do think, like, knowing what I know about Candace, which is far too much for any able-brained person, but I think she would do anything for money. I think she would do anything for money and to further her career. But, like, I think it's really interesting how people consume Candace. Like, there is this idea that she's, like, of the internet. But, like, actually, people don't watch her like that. So there was some sort of controversy over people saying that she had bots watching her videos because the chat wasn't like on fire. And Hassan Piker had some of his fans. come and they were like blowing up her chat and they're like see that means that your audience isn't engaged and it's like no friend it's because everybody watches her like they watch Oprah it's like roku and YouTube like they watch it on their television yeah they just have it up yeah like that is how people are consuming it it's not of the internet for them it really has like replaced their like entertainment like she's true like people do watch it like they used to watch Oprah oh they're on YouTube TV yeah they watch it like they watch Oprah and that they're not really watching and that

they're kind of doing something in the other room then they come back in and maybe they're having attention, they're on their phone. Oh, my God. It's like looking into a mirror because, like, you're sitting on a couch, like, or at your, like, nook table on your laptop. And she's sitting at her nook table on her laptop. And you're looking at each other and you're both typing and looking at your laptops and you're learning together.

I mean, this is so dangerous. We are so cooked every single episode. It's another way in which, like, we are just headed down the mountain till she comes, folks. Keep your head up. Keep your head up, kid. We love you, man. We can do this. It's okay. Yeah, we can do this. Brandy, I'm so glad we had you on.

And thanks for doing what you do. Yeah. A joy. Absolutely wonderful talking to you. Yeah, where can people go to find more of your work? They can go to MS. dot now, and there will soon, within the next couple days, be a whole deep dive into this conspiracy theory network. And a lot of the things we just talk about. So I hope you check it out.

Check it out, folks. Thanks for listening to another episode. of the QAA podcast, you can go to patreon.com slash QAA and subscribe for $5 a month to get a whole second premium episode for every regular episode, plus access to our entire archive of premium episodes. We've also got a website that's QAApodcast.com. Listener, until next week. May the Deep Dish bless you and keep you. We have auto-keyed content based on your preferences. were inundated yesterday with emails from people who work in the space of media, in the space of audio, particularly, and they were positively incensed and insistent. They could not express enough how absolutely inappropriate, nonsensical, and utterly moot it would be for Charlie's

mic to be placed on the inside of his shirt. And as we examined the question, is this how they just had always done it? Were they always just, you know, incompetent? Well, we had some time, ladies and gentlemen, and I told you, the very first tour stop where I saw that as a new feature was the first tour, the first college campus tour, where I was not featured alongside Charlie Kirk. And that is when, it seems, the team began to introduce the redundancy of the wireless road bike. Again, it began in fall 2004, the European brainwashed tour. And I should mention that at first, when they started introducing this, they did place the wireless this mic on Charlie in a way that made audio sense on the outside of his shirt.

Take a look. On September 11th, University of North Texas, he has the mic. There we go. But you can see it's on the outside of his shirt because that makes sense. On September 18th, he was at the University of Pittsburgh. Again, you can see Tyler, I mean, Tyler, Charlie has it on the outside of his shirt. That makes sense. Suddenly on October 8th, the University of Nevada in Reno, Charlie has it on the inside of his

shirt. On October 30th, it's on the inside of his shirt. This is that expression that I said to you that we use here in a state's called Boiling the Frog slowly, right? Introducing something new so he doesn't really recognize it and then changing one thing, getting him adapted to it so he doesn't really ask questions, and then, you know, lo and behold, something doesn't really make sense, but you're kind of used to the thing that's not making sense, boiling the frog slowly before he could know, hey, it's getting really hot in here, it's time to jump outside of the pot.

You know,