Grief Economics

This is probably the darkest article that I have currently published in my repertoire. It reveals something quite uncanny that I wager most people can probably decipher at some subconscious level, though they may not wish to admit it, otherwise. But I find the truth deep within it far too convincing not to share.

That being said, I don't see around corners, and I exercise no special power of clairvoyance. I am no charlatan, either. Yet, a few of my predictions and writings thus far have proven to be accurate to some extent. I trust my followers and subscribers will acknowledge this one.

Out of pure curiosity, though, I happened to search for the most viewed articles of all time, using Claude, and what I stumbled upon was indeed an interesting tidbit of info. According to the most-read Wikipedia articles of 2025, Charlie Kirk’s assassination was top of the list with an astonishing 45 million views. Kobe Bryant previously held the record with over 22.8 million views. Even the COVID-19 pandemic page was near the top, though it couldn’t quite compete with the aforementioned Kirk and Bryant single-event spikes.

That being said, it’s clear that producing an article about the manner or the controversy surrounding a famous person’s untimely death captures a great deal of attention. Naturally, the more of an impact the person has made, the more attention postmortem.

Charlie Kirk, in particular, claimed to have Polish roots in one of his videos, so I find this one especially noteworthy — if you'll recall, my Polish ancestry was mentioned in previous articles. Charlie Kirk was also quite clear when he stated that his grandparents came to America legally. I find this tidbit unsettling, as mass migrations currently dominate our headlines. So it may come as no surprise that a reporter or writer could use such knowledge herein to produce an article that would garner a substantial viewership — simply by receiving wind of ones potential passing, in advance. Perhaps from local law enforcement, who had leaked it?

I’ll go ahead and give the phenomenon a name. We’ll call it “grief economics.” A writer, therefore, could be significantly incentivized to produce an article simply by acquiring some form of insider knowledge of an individuals impeding death. A bit like chasing tornadoes, for a thrill.

It goes without saying that a writer who covers grief economics could, potentially, amass a viewership that far exceeds anything he has ever written prior. But we are, after all, on a sensitive topic with real people who deserve our respect, so it’s best to tread carefully. Another matter to consider is that the proceeds from these views are typically celebrated by the platform owners rather than the actual writers or authors, who, having produced the written work, rarely profit in any meaningful way from having done so.

So, is chasing death for ‘likes’ as morally bankrupt as one could imagine? You’re just a writer, after all. You're not gathering evidence. But suppose, now, you've happened to catch sight of a pic of the Grim Reaper on a sweatshirt following you around, from establishment to establishment, after some Thomson and Thomson at the local police station thought that maybe (just maybe) playing mind games with you was enforceable? Such harassment deserves to be documented, even if it were later just a mere coincidence. Yet, unfortunate, nonetheless, if such tomfuckery did transpire, in my opinion. Almost as unfortunate as if one were handed the task to get the message out to the masses following the passing of some notable figure. Death sells? Bet you'll never look at journalism the same again.

Yet, is it similar to chasing a tornado? Some chase death with an equal enthusiasm to those who seek life. So, will the tragic death or replacement of someone in a position of impact be enough to sway one to cover it? Are you willing to do whatever it takes to acquire your first substantial payout? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.