https://www.google.com/search?q=just+stigg+
Stig Abell’s outburst about William Shakespeare:s authorship (Marlowe) is less an argument than a performance—one powered by a neat bit of circular reasoning. His core claim boils down to: Shakespeare must have written Shakespeare because anyone who reads Shakespeare can tell it’s Shakespeare. That’s not evidence; it’s a circular loop dressed up as certainty.
By lumping the Marlowe Theory together with flat-earthers, Abell avoids engaging with the actual question. But dismissing debate doesn’t settle it. The authorship issue—whether involving Christopher Marlowe or others—has existed for centuries precisely because the historical record isn’t airtight.
What stands out isn’t just his irritation, but the fragility behind it. If the case were as self-evident as he insists, it wouldn’t need this kind of rhetorical gatekeeping. Shakespeare’s stature doesn’t depend on shutting down questions—and Abell’s circular certainty does more to weaken his position than defend it.








