john f staples

I’m going to be blunt. I’ve reached the point where I find Erika Kirk deeply disturbing, not because of rumors or gossip, but because of consistent, observable patterns of behavior. To be clear, everything I say in this post is my opinion, I’m not claiming this is a fact I’m saying this is what I think Erica Kirk is. I come from the world of acting and modeling. I’ve spent years around social climbers, opportunists, image-curators, and people who treat relationships as ladders, that is why I left that world. Most of these people are shallow and harmless. A few are dangerous. Erika falls into the latter category not because she is just ambitious, but because of how calculated and performative her ambition appears to be. I believe she maybe a psychopath. What stands out immediately is the reaction she provokes in people, which is very common with psychopaths. Across the board including from people who support her publicly, the private reaction is the same: “I can’t watch her.” Not criticism, just physical discomfort. People turn off interviews because the presentation feels artificial to the point of being unbearable. let me explain: That kind of response does not happen accidentally, and it does not happen often. Research in psychology shows that humans are highly sensitive to emotional incongruence, mismatches between facial expression, tone, and content. When affect appears simulated rather than genuine, the brain registers it as a threat signal. This activates discomfort and avoidance, even if the person cannot consciously explain why. So many of us felt this way but we could not explain why we could not watch her. Studies on psychopathy, particularly those building on the work of psychologists like Robert Hare, describe traits such as rehearsed emotional display, and shallow affect. These traits can create what observers experience as an “uncanny” interpersonal dynamic. The discomfort arises and people want to shut it off because most people rarely encounter extreme affective mimicry in everyday life, so the brain struggles to categorize what it is detecting. (Comment below if this is what you felt like when watching her.) Erica is attractive enough, and she had every tool in her position to sell this organically except for one thing - emotion. The entire story of what happened could have helped her sell this fully, she really would have been the last person on earth to be a suspect, if not for the FBI’s terrible mistakes, TPUSA’s lies, and her very fake performance. Plenty of attractive, ambitious women move through media spaces without triggering that response, even though we know what they are. This is about something else, an extreme disconnect between presentation she puts out and perceived authenticity. Erica is not the archetype of a model/actress seeking money and fame and then settling into a quiet life with a wealthy good looking husband. She’s the wolf type. Who wants to be in the place of that husband.She is not born for a supporting role, she’s a decision-maker type. She appears to pursue proximity to power, moving fluidly between television, nonprofits, branding opportunities, and ideological spaces that maximize exposure. Her previous partners are guys women like her would date, muscular, jacked, good-looking. Even though they are not people with huge potential, they are all somewhat established. They are good stepping stones until the right person shows up. Now, looking at her previous partners, I’d say Charlie probably was not her type visually, but he was exactly what she was looking for in a man - potential to be a great power. What Erica was looking for is the same thing Hillary Clinton was looking for when she met Bill. She recognized that Bill Clinton was her ticket to power, the power she could control and she was right. She realized she could create a great brand out of him and herself, and they still are a brand. The Clintons. No one in this world can say they love each other. They are a brand that works. This is why she’s sticking around despite Epstein and Lewinsky. Also, if you think Bill is the decision-maker there, you must have never been in close proximity to the Clintons. She moves the game, she is the decision-maker. Erica saw a brand with Charlie. She also saw that Charlie could one day become President of the United States if he wanted to. Charlie had the ear of the most powerful segment of any society - students! He was going to be a very important player in politics, and she was not missing that ride. What’s striking is how completely her public identity reshapes itself after that relationship begins. The aesthetic, the tone, the values, the presentation all change. Overnight, the persona shifts into the role that best fits Charlie’s world, devoted Christian, modest, supportive housewife. That kind of rapid adaptation is quite impressive for a usual person but not for a psychopath, they do it all the time. In my head story goes like this: For a moment, it works. She becomes the wife of a rising political figure with access to donors, institutions, and national platforms. At that point, the ceiling isn’t social media influence, it’s empire-building, foundations, global reach, a legacy brand - Kirks! It’s obvious that Charlie listens to her, whether it’s about donors or the trajectory of TPUSA. The most influential figure in any mentally healthy man’s life is his wife. She is going to be the biggest influence, and that’s just how it is. That is why you need to pick you partner wisely! Everything was going well until Charlie makes decisions based on conscience rather than expansion and money. He turns down money. He refuses to play dirty politics. I’m assuming someone like Erica who married into this because she had a vision for this brand would not be very happy that. The life she appears to have signed up for - power couple, expanding influence, historical relevance, was collapsing into something else entirely, domesticity, housewife kids and now Charlie's refusing to accept the money that can make him a global power. A supporting role instead of center stage is not her thing. Her husband died a few days ago, and she walks onto the stage as if she were born there. It comes naturally to her, she knows it, and she wants it. Just days after her husband’s death, she was already laying out ambitious plans for the company over Zoom. It’s obvious she was always deeply involved in the business and knew exactly where to pick up when her turn came. What people struggle to watch, what makes the screen unbearable, is not grief. It’s the absence of emotional continuity. Performances can be learned, trust me, as a former actress I can speak to that, but emotion can’t be improvised or mimicked if you’ve never experienced it. That’s why I think we are dealing with a psychopath who has never really experienced these emotions and does not know how to play them. And audiences feel it instantly. It’s fake. Again just my opinion. This isn’t an accusation of crime, I’m not claiming this is what happened and it's a fact. It’s an analysis I made after watching her long enough. And quite honestly I am sick of this shit.