MENU

Are the Taylor Swift Conspiracies the Product of Envy?

By Marco den Ouden

February 24, 2024

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

What is envy?

Ayn Rand always has a unique spin on things.

Ayn Rand always has a unique spin on things. She defines envy as “hatred of the good for being good” (130)

In her 1971 essay called “The Age of Envy,” she notes that the term covers a range of emotions. She notes the Random House Dictionary has two definitions. One is “a sense of discontent or jealousy with regard to another’s success.” The other is “desire for an advantage possessed by another.” But, she notes there is an elaboration which is more sinister. “To envy is to feel resentful because someone else possesses or has achieved what one wishes oneself to possess or to have achieved” (in Return of the Primitive, p. 133). The term “resentful” implies the possibility of hatred.

Rand discusses appropriate senses of envy. If envy spurs one on to use this feeling as “an incentive for the (poor) man to improve his financial condition,” this is good.

It is bad if it leads one to become a poseur, a second-hander like Peter Keating in The Fountainhead.

But, she notes, there are those who feel “I hate this man because he is wealthy and I am not,” which is an evil.

Then there are those who see a value, whether it is another’s wealth, beauty, happiness or whatever, and want to destroy it. Such a creature “does not desire the value: it desires the value’s destruction” (134). She includes a quote from John Galt’s speech, but the exemplar of this mentality is Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead. As I argued in a previous essay, Toohey is the epitome of evil.

She makes some interesting observations. One is that these creatures, these haters of the good, “are a small, depraved minority in any age or culture. The spread and perpetuation of this evil are accomplished by those who profiteer on it” (138). She is thinking of psychological rather than monetary profiteering. She goes on to say that this small minority “provide the haters with unlimited means of rationalization, dissimulation, excuse and camouflage, including ways of passing vices off as virtues … Their vested interest is power lust.” But as we shall see later, monetary profiteering is also in play.

In a discussion of envy with my colleagues, I had suggested that envy is the product of envious mediocrities. Rand herself refers to “pretentious mediocrities” (137), the show-off “who seeks, not virtue or value, but superiority.” In other words, a second-hander like Peter Keating.

Rand writes, “Do not confuse this response with that of a person who resents someone’s unearned success, or feels pleased by someone’s deserved failure.”

But one of my colleagues made the interesting observation that it wasn’t mediocrities who were envious, but those of modest success, but frustrated when they see lesser men adulated and successful. Rand agrees with this point. She writes, “Do not confuse this response with that of a person who resents someone’s unearned success, or feels pleased by someone’s deserved failure” (132). But she temporizes this later when she suggests that the “man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements … he does not evaluate himself—or others—by a comparative standard. His attitude is not” ‘I am better than you,’ but: ‘I am good’” (137). Roark, when asked by Toohey what he thought of him, notably replied that he didn’t think of him at all which exemplifies that point.

Rand goes on to look at what she sees as the origins of the “haters of the good,” an argument I find unconvincing but basically she argues that the haters are those who have not developed emotionally past their childhood. They are stunted in the perceptual level of consciousness and have not fully developed their conceptual faculty. And she argues that these haters can be found in the humanities departments of many universities. (The latter point I agree with, as evidenced from the attack on modernity and science from within academe itself.) There is today a concerted effort to destroy the foundations of Western science and Western society.

But Rand sets the stage for what I see as one of the most insidious manifestations of envy today—conspiracy theories. There are two things Rand said that are relevant here: that envy is manifested by hatred of the good, and that perpetrators of this evil profit by it.

In her book Antisemitism: Here and Now, Deborah Lipstadt suggests that:

Conspiracy theories give events that seem inexplicable to some people an intentional explanation. If we were to provide these conspiracy theorists with evidence that proves the landing was indeed on the moon, they will a priori dismiss what we say and assume we are part of the conspiracy. To try and defeat an irrational supposition—especially when it is firmly held by its proponents—with a rational explanation is virtually impossible. Any information that does not correspond with the conspiracy theorists’ preferred social, political, or ethnic narrative is ipso facto false. (7–8)

 

Since her achievement of billionaire status, the conspiracy theories surrounding Taylor Swift have blossomed. Consider, for example, a post and subsequent exchanges on my Facebook account.

 

Deconstructing a Facebook Post

Since I researched Swift and found out what a talented genius she is, I’ve come across numerous posts trashing her or her music but one stands out as an exemplar of the worst of the worst. Names have been removed in the following exchange. The original post was as follows:

So 14-year-old girl music is your cup of tea … If you’re an adult and defending Taylor Swift’s music in any other capacity than “14-year-old girls should be free to listen to crap,” then I actually think you’re either a moron or so caught up in the childish subjectivism of our time that you can’t recognize good music. I have no interest in arguing with people about Taylor Swift. Call me whatever you want. At least I’m not destroying brain cells by listening to shit.

 

Deconstruction: The writer is expressing his personal taste in music, but to denigrate those who like her music as morons or caught up in childish subjectivism is just an admission they don’t actually have an argument. Name calling is not argument. And the acknowledgement of Swift’s talent and genius actually comes from her peers in the music industry, not from morons or childish people. Billboard recognized her as eighth on their list of The Greatest of All Time Artists. As noted earlier, her recognition as a country songwriter came from her peers, other country songwriters. And Rolling Stone, the leading magazine on music and music culture recognized her as one of the Top 100 Songwriters of All Time, the youngest person on their list. “She’s really hit her stride with the pop mastery of Red and 1989, especially on confessional ballads like ‘Clean’ and ‘All Too Well.’ There’s no limit to where she can go from here.” Of course, the writers of Billboard and Rolling Stone are all just childish morons according to the poster.

I replied to the post as follows:

I guess that makes me a moron then. Not a big fan of her music but I think she and her accomplishments make an excellent role model for young people. Taste in music is, to a great degree, subjective. Her music is, at least, musically better than punk rock.

 

To which I got the following astounding reply:

She/he worships satan and does satanic rituals during her/his concerts. He/she is funded by George Soros and works for the illuminate. [sic] Kelce made $22 million pushing the CV19 bioweapon “vaccine”

 

Deconstruction: Now we’re getting into absurd conspiracy theories. First there’s the misogynistic trope that Taylor Swift is a man. This is not a new one. It was trotted out bigtime by Obama haters declaring that Michelle Obama was really a man.

Then the satanic rituals, another popular conspiracy theory trope. Mike Rothschild, in his book Jewish Space Lasers: The Rothschilds and 200 Years of Conspiracy Theories, notes that the Rothschild conspiracy theories also drifted into accusations of satanism. He discusses preacher and conspiracist John Todd who in the 1970s “spun out an incomprehensible epic about total Satanic control of entertainment and politics.” This was, of course, tied into the so-called Illuminati. “The essential plot was always the same: the Illuminati were on the verge of taking over the world, and the Rothschilds ran the Illuminati.” Laughingly, Todd also claims the Rothschilds “financed the writing of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a public blueprint” of what the Rothschilds “would do during the Satanic takeover.” The author cites Jesse Walker’s The United States of Paranoia (a book I have also read) as the source on Todd. (Note: Mike Rothschild is not a member of the famous Rothschild family.)

Soros, like Swift, supports progressive causes like feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, anti-racism, abortion rights and so on.

Then there is the George Soros trope. Soros, like Swift, supports progressive causes like feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, anti-racism, abortion rights and so on. The calumnies by the right against Soros are legend, though it can be said that Soros did more than any other private individual to help end Soviet communism. (See my essay on The Anti-Utopians.)

And as for Swift’s boyfriend Travis Kelce making millions off the Covid 19 vaccine, that is actually true. Kelce was paid by Pfizer to appear in commercials promoting the vaccine. But to call the Covid vaccine a bioweapon is sketchy at best.

In any event, it seems that haters gotta hate and Taylor Swift is the latest target. As reported by Liam Reilly at CNN:

The absurd and baseless conspiracy theory in question, which was popularized in right-wing media ahead of Super Bowl LVIII, alleges Swift’s relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce was fabricated by the government as part of a sprawling psychological operations plot. The goal of the purported plot is that the Chiefs’ victory on Sunday would present Swift with an even larger pulpit from which to endorse Biden, swinging the 2024 presidential election in his favor.

 

Of course, neither of the duo made any political statements at or after the Super Bowl. But the real absurdity, and evidence that conspiracy theorists are enablers, manipulators of public opinion are the results of a Monmouth University poll that is the main topic of the article. Eighteen percent of respondents believed the conspiracy had some validity. This jacked up to thirty-two percent of Republicans. Many had never heard of the conspiracy but when presented with it, readily agreed that it was credible. That such large numbers of people fall for such guff is simply astounding.

 

And such conspiracy theories, as I noted earlier are profitable to many, not just psychologically but monetarily. Rothschild notes in his book that the antisemitic anti-Rothschild conspiracy has a long history going back to the 19th century. Conspiracy theories then were that Nathan Rothschild, head of the British bank, manipulated the public to pull off a major profit from the war. It included such false tropes as that he played both sides of the war. Others include the Rothschilds financing both sides of the American Civil War.

The Rothschild family did have immense wealth and influence back in the day, but by the turn of the century, their fortunes had dwindled considerably. Today there is one person named Rothschild in the Forbes billionaire list, Jeff Rothschild, who made his fortune with Facebook and is not a member of the famous banking family.

Yet the conspiracy theories continue. Most of them go back to Nesta Webster’s 1921 book World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization. Herself the daughter of a wealthy banker, Webster first gained notoriety for writing essays for The Jewish Peril, an antisemitic series in the London Morning Post. Her book attacked the Rothschilds, the Freemasons and the Illuminati as perpetrators of a giant plot to take over the world. Her book sold well, as have many other antisemitic conspiracy theory books. I’ve actually read one such book, Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy. First published in 1971, the book is still in print and selling today.

Alex Jones, the online provocateur now deep in debt from lawsuits by families of school shootings he denied happened, has peddled antisemitic conspiracies regularly, making millions in the process. Antisemitic conspiracies are a cottage industry. Want to make big bucks? Copy verbatim any old conspiracy tome from the past, repackage it slightly, and away you go.

Other profiteers on bunk include David Icke who started out flogging antisemitic conspiracies and progressed to put his own unique spin on it. Space aliens wearing human disguise are the instigators of this plot to take over the world. These reptilian aliens included the late Queen Elizabeth. I wonder if they did an autopsy after she died and discovered her alien body behind the human facade! Yet people eat up such tripe without a thought.

No wonder almost a third of Republicans buy into the Taylor Swift conspiracy as Reilly reported. If Swift was Jewish instead of Christian, I have no doubt the conspiracy theory about her would have taken an antisemitic turn. Instead, it took a proxy turn alleging George Soros is a backer of the plot to promulgate a Biden victory in the next election and maybe even take over the world.

Conspiracy theories as well as antisemitic tropes come from both the left and the right.

But as Deborah Lipstadt notes in her book on antisemitism, conspiracy theories as well as antisemitic tropes come from both the left and the right. In one chapter she analyzes two public figures who, while not explicit antisemites, gave succor to antisemites. One is Donald Trump in the wake of the Charlottesville fiasco. Marchers chanted “Jews will not replace us,” and “Blood and Soil,” a slogan “central to Nazi ideology.” Trump opined that there were good people on both sides. This encouraged white supremacists like Richard Spencer, one of the organizers of the march. Others at Charlottesville included the National Socialist Movement and Vanguard America, both neo-Nazi groups. “The car used to murder a counterdemonstrator sported a Vanguard America decal.”

When conservative commentator Bethany Mandel “tweeted what she described as ‘an offhand remark’ about Donald Trump’s ‘legions of antisemitic fans,” she received replies such as a message “branding her as a ‘Jewess’ who ‘deserves the oven.’”

This is just one example of Trump’s perfidy. She describes many more where he refused to take a stand against antisemitism. That Trump declined to condemn antisemitism makes him an enabler of such vile filth. Indeed, the editor of the antisemitic Daily Stormer wrote, “Our glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters. After having been attacked for retweeting a White Genocide account a few days ago, Trump went on to retweet two more White Genocide accounts, back to back.”

But the other public figure she analyzes is Jeremy Corbyn, a British Labour Party leader, who in his zeal to support progressive causes, like support for the Palestinians, has ended up supporting antisemitism. She describes Corbyn’s political raison d’etre as a “knee-jerk sympathy for anyone who is or appears to be oppressed or an underdog … Anyone white, wealthy, or associated with a group that appears to be privileged cannot be a victim.” When Corbyn encounters antisemites, “their Jew hatred is irrelevant as long as their other positions—on class, race, capitalism, the role of the state, and Israel/Palestine—are to his liking.”

Lipstadt goes into a lengthy discussion of Corbyn’s sins. In fact, throughout the book, she discusses antisemitism from the left more than she does from the right. Right wing antisemitism is overt and visible. Left wing antisemitism is disguised as virtue, which makes it much more insidious.

It is no surprise then that hatred towards Swift has emerged from the left as well.

It is no surprise then that hatred towards Swift has emerged from the left as well. While the right wing castigates her as a pro-Biden supporter and part of a government psyop to get Biden re-elected, the leftist attack alleges she is a racist and a Nazi.

The attack originated with a blog called PopFront in September 2017. After an excellent discussion of the eugenics movement and its inherent racism, the essay goes on to suggest:

Taylor’s lyrics in “Look What You Made Me Do” seem to play to the same subtle, quiet white support of a racial hierarchy. Many on the alt-right see the song as part of a “re-awakening,” in line with Trump’s rise. At one point in the accompanying music video, Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis[sic] Germany. The similarities are uncanny and unsettling.

 

The writer continues: “Quiet racism only needs subtle encouragement, and it seems that “look what you made me do” fits the criteria perfectly.”

In a 2016 essay at Vice called “How Taylor Swift Became a Nazi Idol,” Mitchell Sunderland writes how the alt-right and white supremacists have adopted her as their pop queen. He quotes Andre Anglin, a writer for The Daily Stormer:

It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world. Probably, she will be betrothed to Trump’s son, and they will be crowned American royalty.

Sunderland hypothesizes that the white supremacist/Nazi fringe were attracted to her long before “Look What You Made Me Do” because she was a perfect Aryan goddess. He suggests the possibility that the Swift/Hitler association originated with teenage Pinterest user Emily Pattinson who under the online handle of @poopcutie posted parody pictures associating Swift with Hitler in 2013. Swift’s lawyers quickly came down on Pattinson arguing:

The association of Ms. Swift with Adolf Hitler undisputedly is ‘harmful,’ ‘abusive,’ ‘ethnically offensive,’ ‘humiliating to other people,’ ‘libelous,’ and no doubt ‘otherwise objectionable.’ It is of no import that Ms. Swift may be a public figure or that Pinterest conveniently now argues that the Offending Material is mere satire or parody. Public figures have rights. And, there are certain historical figures, such as Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson and the like, who are universally identified in the case law and popular culture as lightning rods for emotional and negative reaction.

 

Nevertheless, Pinterest cited laws on parody and refused to take down the offending memes.

Her lawyers sent a similar letter to PopFront arguing that the letter served as an “unequivocal denouncement by Ms. Swift of white supremacy and the alt-right.” The ACLU jumped in to accuse Swift of wanting to censor PopFront.

The PopFront article goes into some detail arguing that the lyrics to “Look What You Made Me Do” imply white supremacy. They even quote Camille Paglia as calling Swift a “Nazi Barbie—a silly, regressive public image of white 50’s America.” I thought Paglia would have more common sense than to play the Nazi card. It diminishes whatever respect I had for her in the past.

Others jumping on the “Swift is a Nazi” bandwagon include the notorious Chanda Prescod-Weinstein as reported by Jonathan Kay at Quillette. The Prescod-Weinstein who so perfectly plays the victim card and is a master of character assassination.

What does the song actually say? You can find the lyrics here and see for yourself.

What does the song actually say? You can find the lyrics here and see for yourself. It is a song of revenge, certainly, but only by twisted logic can it be construed as supporting white supremacy. Swift can’t be held accountable for the misuse and appropriation of her music by haters. Her lawyers are correct when they say that their letters constitute an “unequivocal denouncement by Ms. Swift of white supremacy and the alt-right.”

There is a certain irony in that the alt-right popularizes the trope that she is a psyop plant to promote the election of Biden while the left claims she will marry Trump’s son and “they will be crowned American royalty.”

In my view Taylor Swift is a genius and a role model for, not just for young women, but for everyone. The conspiracy theories against her are just so much baloney. Such theorists despise her politics and the progressive causes she supports or twist her songs into support for white supremacy. They postulate such conspiracies to prey on the gullible and maybe even profit financially on the side. They have absolutely no substance. She is a victim of those who hate the good for being good.

Swift, to her credit, ignores such machinations and goes about her work, entertaining, making people happy and making money. More power—and fame and wealth—to her!

 

 

(Visited 155 times, 1 visits today)