After losing his California home in the devastating LA wildfires, Mel Gibson has sparked controversy with claims that the fires may have been “commissioned” to force people off valuable land. The Academy Award-winning actor’s comments have polarized opinions, with supporters praising his courage and critics dismissing his theories as baseless conspiracies.
The recent Palisades fire in Los Angeles, which ignited on January 7, left behind a trail of destruction, consuming over 40,000 acres, destroying nearly 12,500 structures, and claiming at least 24 lives. Among those affected was Gibson, who learned the devastating news while recording an episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast on January 10: his $23.5 million Malibu home had been reduced to ashes.
In a subsequent interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Gibson opened up about the personal impact of the tragedy. His son managed to grab a few essentials—passports and important documents—but most of their belongings, including priceless artwork, photographs, and rare books dating back to the 1600s, were lost to the flames. Reflecting on the destruction, Gibson described the experience as both heartbreaking and strangely liberating, calling it a form of “purification.”
“It’s a strange mixture of sadness and almost kind of an elation,” Gibson explained. “The house and possessions we lost—they were just things. They may have held memories, but they’re replaceable. What truly matters is that we’re still here.”
While comparing the devastation to the bombing of Dresden during World War II, Gibson shared his feelings about the fleeting nature of material possessions. But as the interview progressed, he ventured into more controversial territory, suggesting that the fires may not have been entirely natural.
The 69-year-old actor questioned whether the disaster was a result of foul play. “I know they were messing with the water, letting reserves go for one reason or another,” he said, referring to California’s water management practices. “There are a lot of baffling issues here, and it makes you wonder if there’s something bigger at play.”
Gibson’s theory hinges on the belief that powerful individuals or entities might have orchestrated the wildfires for financial or political gain. He hinted at the possibility that people were intentionally setting fires, speculating on whether they were “commissioned” to do so or acting on their own volition. “The wind conditions were right, and there are people ready, willing, and able to start fires,” he suggested, adding that it seemed “a little too convenient” that water supplies were unavailable during the crisis.
His remarks drew a mixed response from Ingraham, who suggested that the fires might be tied to efforts to promote high-density housing in California. “You’re already hearing rumblings about this push for high-density housing,” she noted. “Goodbye, single-family homes. Hello, high-rise apartments.”
Gibson appeared to agree, likening the situation to the actions of 19th-century cattle barons who forcibly cleared land for ranching. “It reminds me of the old cattle barons, clearing people off the land,” he said. “I don’t know if this is what’s happening, but it’s worth questioning.”
As expected, Gibson’s comments have ignited fierce debate. Supporters on social media have praised him for daring to voice what they perceive as hard truths. “He has the guts to tell the truth,” wrote one fan in the comments section of the Fox clip. Another added, “Fabulous words of truth from Mel Gibson—AGAIN!!!” Many hailed him as a rare voice of conscience in Hollywood, with one user commenting, “Mel is one of the very few courageous entertainers with morals and a conscience. He speaks truths others dare not.”
However, critics were quick to push back, labeling his remarks as irresponsible and unhelpful in the wake of such a tragedy. “Absolutely crazy,” one detractor wrote. “This is not the time to spread conspiracy theories about a situation where people have lost their homes and lives. It’s a time for compassion, not baseless accusations.”
Others were more scathing, with comments like, “Crazy is what crazy does. Mel, you’ve needed help for a long time. Go and get it.” Another frustrated user added, “So tired of these conspiracy zombies. He should stop spreading nonsense and focus on facts.”
While Gibson’s theories have garnered attention, it’s important to note that there is no evidence to support claims that the LA wildfires were intentionally set for financial or political purposes. Wildfires in California have been linked to a combination of factors, including climate change, prolonged drought, and mismanaged forest lands.
Gibson’s remarks, while divisive, have sparked conversations about accountability and the handling of natural disasters. Whether his comments hold weight or fall into the realm of conspiracy, they have certainly fueled public debate. Let us know your thoughts—was Gibson shedding light on overlooked truths, or did he cross the line with his theories?
