Jeremy Boreing@JeremyDBoreing
Don't let her bother you.
Today's meltdown is just classic Candace.
She makes charge after charge after charge and places the burden of proof on the accused - as if 'guilty until proven innocent' is a reasonable standard, and as if I have any reason to defend myself against her in the first place.
As with all conspiracists, she relies on what I call the Preponderance of False Evidence. It's an incredibly effective persuasion tactic because it makes it seem like her case is irrefutable simply because of the sheer volume of her claims. The number of charges becomes a substitute for actual evidence, as though accusing someone of MULTIPLE crimes evidences their guilt of ANY crime.
Of course, it does not.
It does make it difficult to ever defend against her onslaughts, however. Even if you refute one of her accusations with undeniable evidence, it doesn't matter because there are still so many other charges! Surely you're guilty of some of them...
You see this with, for example, the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy. Conspiracists will say, "If there is no atmosphere on the moon, why did the flag wave?"
If you reply with facts -- the flag did not wave, it oscillated expressly because the lack of atmosphere means there was no friction to bleed off the energy from twisting the flag into the lunar soil -- the conspiracist, rather than admitting they were wrong, just hard pivots to another charge: "Why are there two directional shadows when the only light source on the moon is the sun?"
That's the power of the Preponderance of False Evidence. It seeks to bury you not only without actual evidence, but in contravention of it. Erika Kirk isn't just accused on one thing, she is complicit in her husband's murder. And the coverup. And alleged financial malfeasance. And child trafficking. And is a lesbian. And had a bad haircut in third grade...
And, and, and...
This isn't the only one of Candace's tools on display, of course. Her manipulation arsenal is formidable.
Most all of her charges rely on Bare Assertion Fallacy, Esoteric Knowledge, Big Lie techniques, Red Herring, and just about every other trick in the conman's book.
Even the threat that implies I’m afraid of being exposed by her: “Shall I share the demented 5 page email you wrote to the staff…” Perfectly crafted audience manipulation. Guaranteed to keep people tuned in for episode two.
Of course, she is savvy enough to use just a little bit of truth here and there to ground her manipulations.
For example, I did have quite a nice wardrobe at Daily Wire -- sports coats and suits, mostly. And I did have exactly one Gucci Jacket -- made famous in the Jeremy's Razors Commercial. I did not, however, have ‘a wardrobe closet filled with tailored Gucci suits.' But the charge feels credible because some of the words weren't completely made up. It's a truth-adjacent claim. And if any claim sticks, every claim sticks in the game of character assassination.
Oh, and she loves to employ projection. Projection most of all.
"Jeremy was obsessed with the spotlight!" Certainly I am not immune to ego -- an occupational hazard for everyone in public life. But Candace has literally spent the last decade in front of the camera, on stage, in documentaries, in interviews, and on her myriad shows. Are we to assume she ISN'T obsessed with the spotlight?
Jeremy is trying to “centrally cast [himself] in everything.” Has Candace ever produced a show she wasn't the star of?
Jeremy is “the rich wife with the Amex.” Um...
Of course, Candace has never met a standard she thought should be applied universally.
Everyone who criticizes her is "obsessed," even though she has now gone six months without a single episode that didn't focus on Charlie Kirk, almost as many focused on Erika Kirk - a woman whose sole crime seems to be that she dared to become more important to Charlie and then to the entire Conservative Movement than Candace herself -- and two years fixated on a small tribe of people that represent 0.2% of the global population.
Still, taken in sum, these techniques Candace employs, coupled with her incredible instinct for marketing and "it" factor, make her an incredibly effective manipulator. I've never seen better. She has earned her success, for all the good it will do her.
I will clarify one thing, though: I have never once said that I "created" Candace.
I certainly did not create her.
I didn't write the headline of the Daily Mail piece, though I did give all of the ensuing quotes.
One of those quotes is, "I'm not the cause of Candace's talent or fame, but I did play a role."
And so I did.
I invested heavily into Candace during my tenure at Daily Wire. We expended millions and millions of dollars on her and her brand, just like PragerU and TPUSA before us.
Of course, we have all paid a price for that investment -- and indeed, we should. We should have shown more discernment, and we deserve to take some lumps.
But our failures do not justify Candace's treachery. That she has betrayed most everyone who ever invested in her is, like her talent, her narcissism, and her deep dishonesty, all Candace.
No one created her but her.
