I have to admit that since the Depp case, I am finding less and less "commonality" with YouTube "influencers"

 

I admit I don’t always agree with the opinions of the YouTubers who I followed during the Johnny Depp case, and sometimes I hold quite the opposite opinion in certain ways, particularly ideological. One is with a Taylor Swift fan, and he is giving her “props” for the way she is “handling” her hundreth break-up. It sounds like the guy she was in a 6-year relationship proposed to her and it was then she “discovered” how much she really “felt” about him, which is about as much you would expect from a user who has made a fortune out of a corporate-created "image," complete with that blonde, blue-eyed Aryan-Nordic frontage.

Give me a break. Swift is just like Amber Heard, a complete narcissist who in this case the so-called "music" industry has built-up for purely commercial reasons. The truth should be obvious: she used this guy for his work on her songs, and she kept him on a leash for that reason alone. Swift has had so many breakups that we must at long last come to the conclusion that it must be about her, not "them," right?

Anyways, Swift's music (such as it is) is reflective of the kind of boring, tuneless whines that receives "critical acclaim" these days, and yet people are paying thousands a pop to see "her." Why? She can't sing, she can't dance, and her output will be forgotten a decade after she leaves the scene. Why the hell do you think they still use Seventies tunes in films and television commercials? Because those songs actually speak to the concerns of normal people.

But you are still going to freakin' tell me that she is on the same level as Madonna? What crack are you smoking if you think Swift is anywhere near her as far as quality, quantity, performance or any other discriptor that matters? I admit that how I feel about Madonna depends on what day it is, but I would never disrespect her by suggesting that Swift is in the same ballpark as her.

Going on, I have to admit that I am sick of all this dumping on Meghan Markle.  Unlike the other “royals” she had a “real” job once. Prince Harry didn’t have to court her and marry her, but being the “spare” he probably wanted to be “different” and broaden his horizons. The rest of the royal family and household apparently had their own stereotypes about how “black” Americans act (let alone even "belonged"), and the way they sat back and allowed her to be ill-treated by the British media proved it. In fact they probably enjoyed it. Why should she have continued to play the "game" when the British media was finding fault with everything she did?

Not being allowed to pursue her own career, Markle had a right to expect that Harry and his family would provide for and protect her. But Charles forbade her a personal income from the royal “purse,” unlike for the other royal consorts, which was taken as an insult to her as it should have been. Could these things have been handled differently by both parties? Yes, but Markle clearly was never really treated as a “legitimate” member of the family, merely tolerated as an unwanted “curiosity.” Did she “sign up” for this when she “vacated” her own career? No, of course not, so why are people complaining about her?

And then you had people congratulating Elon Musk over his “take-down” of a BBC reporter over whether or not there is hate speech on Twitter. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Musk is a danger to this country. Period. Evil does have a certain "logic" to it, if you're mind works that way. I have this feeling that he is going to allow Twitter to become a cesspool of far-right misinformation and rhetorical violence out of omission; "free speech," as some people call this, has a cost as we saw on January 6. Musk says he was "forced" to buy Twitter for legal reasons despite it potentially being a money loser for him, and now he is taking his "revenge," mainly those on the “left," especially if they don't pay for that "coveted" check mark.  What a phony.

I hope the Supreme Court does overturn Section 230, because that would make Musk legally and financially responsible for any "speech" on Twitter that leads to violence. It is obvious that the BBC reporter wasn't prepared to give those examples of hate speech on Twitter, but there have been many studies showing that since Musk issued an “amnesty” and reinstated known hate groups on Twitter, that anti-Semitic and racist accounts are rising faster than they can be “discovered” and taken down, especially if they just change to an account with a different name.

Musk didn't say anything at all during the BBC interview that made any sense; he didn't present any "facts" himself,  which is how conservatives tend to work. Musk was just playing the "you can't prove a negative" game, and the BBC reporter fell right into it. So who is the bigger liar: the guy who says there is hate speech on Twitter, or the guy who says there isn't? I think that the answer should be obvious, but apparently not to some YouTube “influencers.”

Another thing that I find curious: Why isn’t anyone “investigating” Amber Heard’s current financial situation? She was supposed to be “broke” last year, and according to IMDB, Heard hasn’t worked in two years, and has nothing in pre-production. Heard’s “net worth” is probably at best just a guess.  It was allegedly around $12.5 million 2021, then $8 million in 2022, to the current claim of $6 million, although a story in Parade last December asserted that her net worth was down to $2.5 million. 

During her 2016 divorce proceedings, Heard made some outrageous claims about her “needs,” such as $50,000 a month in expenses, and she hypocritically demanded that Depp take a 52-week “anger management” course. It seems that since Heard had contributed almost nothing of worth during her relationship with Depp (she and her "friends" were the worst of leeches), she ended-up getting virtually nothing from Depp, save that $7 million tax-free, which she claimed she was going to donate to two charities. Why did she demand that Depp provide the money tax-free (meaning Depp paid the taxes on the gross income required to net $7 million) if she really did intend to donate it all it, because that would have made it tax-free anyways? Because she intended to use it for herself, which would have made it taxable income.

Heard has already been paid for Aquaman 2 which is set to be released in December, and word is that it is not expected to do well at all. She has a indi-film called In the Fire which has been in “post-production” for two years with no release date. Depp, on the other hand, has Jeanne du Barry opening the Cannes Film Festival despite efforts by Heard stans media to sabotage it with inflammatory stories about both Depp and the director, Maïwenn. This isn’t surprising of course; Hollywood is also trying to sabotage Leonardo DiCaprio with old stories after his testimony about Hollywood corruption in a current federal case involving money laundering and bribery.

So where is Heard getting her money from? Why are not people the least bit curious about this? The “theory,” of course, is that Musk is paying her child support, since he is alleged to have donated the sperm for the embryo that was placed in an unnamed surrogate mother. Frankly, if Musk is such a “smart” guy, then why would he allow himself to be hoodwinked by a self-serving schemer like Heard? Surely he would have only agreed to this if his liability was limited? Of course the other "theory" is that Heard is blackmailing him with some "secret" information to aid his sense of "generosity." Remember that Heard took those "compromising" photos of Depp napping; that's how her mind works.

But what is “curious” here is why hasn’t anyone just point-blank asked Musk if Heard is currently living off his money? Probably because it will look like he caved-in to Heard’s extortion—or that Heard is a scheming extortionist, which of course would make her not look too good either. To be honest, one fears for that kid Heard is “raising.” She is as much the narcissist and paranoid fantasy world dweller as Evan Rachel Wood, and court papers involving her custody dispute with her ex-husband reveals she has turned her young son into a quivering fear freak.

While there are a few YouTubers I still follow (Colonel Kurtz), I generally don't have a lot of spare time for it now; because of my past interest I still get the latest "updates" on my phone, but if I see it is something I disagree with, I might only take the time to note my view briefly and move on. I do my own work, I don't need an "influencer" to tell me what to think.