Girard's theory is nonsense. For an excellent read on why, see https://shc.stanford.edu/arcade/publications/rofl/issues/vol...

To me, the most repugnant part of Girard is how he tampers with the evidence. Take Oedipus, for example. Does it support Girard's position? No, Oedipus deserved his exile, he was not a scapegoat. "Oh, but that part is a lie; of course a myth doesn't tell the truth." So Girard rewrites Oedipus to make it fit his theory, and then claims Oedipus as evidence that he is right! That's not evidence; it's forgery. And Girard does it all the time - the linked article lists example after example.

So, no, I can't take Girard seriously. And, sorry, but I can't take a Girardian analysis of anything seriously either.

Now, you can claim that the end of WFH is bogus. That's fine. Just don't think of it in Girardian terms.