Is Taylor Swift in on it?

An independent influence?

On 3^rd May 2023, I was out in North London with the Yellow Boards group seeking to raise public awareness of continuing expansions of state tyranny that are ignored by the mainstream media. We were joined by a young man who wished to make a film about the Yellow Boarders. It was unclear whether the portrayal he intended would be favourable. He believed in the official narrative of the fake pandemic and although he had some misgivings about its handling he attributed these to incompetence and had been dutifully injected by those he deemed incompetent. I was cautious in the way I spoke to him, in the way that one might be about feeding the famished or handing ammunition to a potential adversary. We eventually retired to a nearby pub where inevitably the Yellow Boarders spoke openly with him about their views on a variety of topics. The subject of propaganda and the co-opting of the music business arose and with it the name of Taylor Swift. Having experienced the co-ordinated worldwide control system that imposed lockdowns and injection programs, our new acquaintance rejected the notion of a co-ordinated worldwide control system. The notion was to him risible and the suggested involvement of a pop star only served to make the idea seem even more ridiculous. It is understandably challenging to believe in a plot to depopulate and enslave humanity with or without the involvement of Taylor Swift.

Yet given the evident fact that the state wishes to ensure the public is not exposed to what it considers to be misinformation (ie. non state information), pop stars such as Taylor Swift could pose a considerable threat to state messaging. Taylor Swift has 549.8 million social media followers on the main platforms. Some fans may follow her on more than one platform, but on Instagram alone she has 282.6 million followers. Ariana Grande has 511.3 million total followers with 376.5 million on Instagram alone.

If we wish to believe that these individuals achieve their status and influence on their own merits then their independent influence would constitute a major problem for the censorious propaganda machine that has been so obvious in the 2020s.

Would social media platforms working in tandem with state and supranational agencies allow such independent influence? It seems unlikely. In 2018 the informative pages and online shop fronts of natural medicinal practitioners were purged from social media. The censorship, shadow banning, and search engine ghosting that had afflicted those questioning key narratives prior to 2020 was expanded to tackle any dissent that might impede the success of the scamdemic. Only information from within the medical paradigm that replaced natural cures with industrial chemicals in the early 20th century, would be permitted. The co-opting of medical information that began with institutions of academia at least a century ago was reaching its apogee.

The few musicians who spoke out against the scamdemic tyranny bemoaned the silence of their peers and railed against the active complicity of many and often more high profile musical figures. Though Eric Clapton complained of being vaccine injured and Van Morrison wrote songs opposing the tyranny, for the most part musicians were silent or actively engaged in cringe-inducing coercion. From the Beatles to the Rolling Stones, from Dolly Parton to J.Lo, Bruce Springsteen to Annie Lennox, from the Foo Fighters to the Kaiser Chiefs, mainstream musicians acted in service of the agenda.

At the very least the absence of questioning voices in the music industry constituted a sizeable dog that did not bark. How could the perpetrators of the scam have known in advance that public figures with audiences of millions would not speak out against the lies of their plandemic?

They could not, unless of course those voices were already controlled.

In 2019, “the 11th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2019) organized by NATO,” explored methods to “promote behaviour change,” within the, “public health domain.”

Alicia Bargar of Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory stated that the tactic that is, “most common is working with famous people or main influencers to share information or a particular message.” Bargar showed the conference a photograph of Taylor Swift encouraging people to vote as an example of celebrity influence which had a, “measurable effect on voter turnout.”

Bargar described techniques that have been, “developed within the public health domain,” and tentatively admitted that their use, “could be…ethically concerning.”

In the 2020s we saw the use of celebrities such as Ariana Grande in pushing the lies of the scamdemic and coercing people into taking dangerous injections.

Other than footballer Cristiano Ronaldo, four of the five people with the biggest followings on social media are Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande. All four of these music stars reinforced the scamdemic messaging.

Gomez used her platform to complain of what she called “false information,” about covid and vaccines, “scaring people,” on social media. Bieber called, “on the Canadian government and other world leaders to protect everyone, everywhere from COVID-19.” In 2022 Bieber reportedly suffered facial paralysis from Ramsay Hunt syndrome and his wife, Hailey, succumbed to a stroke. Neither condition was reported to be connected to the covid shots, thus normalising the experience of such ailments for his millions of fans. Bieber was still reporting that he had tested positive for the fake disease in February 2024.

Ariana Grande lured people to their injectable doom by singing coercive songs with talk show hosts. Like Grande, Taylor Swift urged people to comply with lockdowns in March 2020. Swift's name was attached to related stories that endorsed the scam narrative. The media reported a Taylor Swift album party in Sydney as a super-spreader event, and a suspected ‘anti-vaxxer actor,’ Miles Teller, who featured in one of Swift's music videos reassured fans that he had after all, been injected. In the credits of the video Swift thanked her ‘covid safety team.’

In a previous article I examined the possible use of pop stars to propagate state agendas prior to 2020 -through alleged terrorist events. If this was a tactic that was employed, the use of a celebrity with whom people have an attachment could have influenced responses and behaviour -as stated by Bargar. Bargar works as a research engineer at Graphika which draws funding from the Pentagon’s Minerva Research Inititative. After doing social media intelligence gathering to help overthrow nations in the so-called ‘Arab spring,’ Graphika was repurposed in December 2019 to map out and silence all potential online opposition to covid messaging.

It is noteworthy then that Bargar identifies Swift as a potential asset, understatedly describing her as, “a fairly influential online person.” It is difficult to overestimate the extent of the influence celebrities exert on young people, but it can be seen when adults meeting their childhood idols are reduced to tears or hysteria. Time magazine made Swift person of the year in 2023, an accolade that seems to be vastly disproportionate to Swift’s talents.

The extent of this influence can be assessed from Taylor Swift's 2024 Eras tour.

“From Atlanta to Warsaw, and Argentina to Wales, an estimated 10.1 million fans have flocked to see Swift on stage, (equivalent to) almost three per cent of the entire population of the United States.”

There seemed to be a concerted effort for media and public figures to promote and endorse Swift's tour. Rather than ignoring her as the media does with those musicians, writers and artists who question state narratives, media networks such as the BBC hyped up the concerts and advised fans on how to, “improve (their) chances of getting a ticket,” as reportedly incredible numbers sought to secure a limited number of tickets.

“Swift's 13 UK concerts next summer are among the most in-demand the country has ever seen, with millions registering for the chance to see the pop superstar's first shows since 2018.

Although Ticketmaster hasn't revealed how many people signed up, the numbers are thought to be similar to Australia - where four million people enrolled for the chance to get one of 450,000 tickets.”

In the UK, Taylor Swifts concerts had a combined attendance of 1,167,000 or 1.68% of a population of 69,395,497

In Scotland the figure was 220,000 or 4% of the population of 5,479,700.

In Wales, 70,000 people or 2.25% of a population of 3,107,500 attended Swift’s concert.

In Ireland it was 150,000 or 2.78% of a population of 5,380,000 (after 500,000 reportedly applied for tickets).

In Australia there were 624,500 attendees or 2.3% of a population of 27.2 million.

Swift’s tour seemed to break numerous stadium attendance records but Swift’s claim of an attendance record at Anfield, home of Liverpool FC was questioned and shown to be false.

Given the expense of a ticket and the travel involved it would seem reasonable to assume that if the rest of the figures are correct, there were more people even than those who applied for tickets who might have liked to attend these concerts but could not. By publicly associating with a NFL player and attending the superbowl Swift has become known to a demographic which may not otherwise have been aware of the musician.

In 2023, Swift's NFL playing boyfriend Travis Kelce fronted a Pfizer commercial, “lashing a pair of bandages on his shoulder while encouraging viewers to get the latest Covid booster and a flu shot at the same time.”

If celebrities can be used to influence behaviour or promote certain storylines, then influential celebrities could also be used to bolster the appeal of a selected high profile change agent such as Taylor Swift. A roll call of celebrities attended Swift’s concerts and were filmed and photographed enjoying the occasions, thereby endorsing Swift and the expensive mania of her tour.

The third night saw a star-studded crowd, including the likes of her NFL star boyfriend Travis Kelce, Ellie Goulding, Sir Paul McCartney, Cate Blanchett, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Andrew Scott, Prince William, and his children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, making it a truly remarkable gathering of Hollywood stars and royalty.

In the UK the media that largely ignores the democide of the clotshots fussed over the use of free tickets to Swift’s concerts by limp-wristed Prime Minister Starmer, his wife Victoria, eleven MPs, and London's Agenda 2030 enforcing mayor Sadiq Khan.

It seems clear that Taylor Swift is someone to whom young people are being encouraged to pay attention, but to what end? What behaviour is the figure being used to encourage?

Swift began as a country and western singer and a self-professed Christian though contradictorily she advocates abortion, and promotes the LGBTQ celebration of 'Pride,' as well as propagating the false notion of man-made climate change. She also endorsed Kamala Harris and expresses an antipathy to Trump, encouraging division within the fake political paradigm. When the cameras panned to her at the superbowl Swift and her companion, designer Ashley Avignone, chugged their drinks.

Swift follows a line of performers who have initially demonstrated apparently innocent appeal, before exposing their young audience to much more adult, sexualised, explicit, or even apparently satanic content. The list includes Billy Eilish, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Sam Smith, Amanda Byrnes, L'il Nas X, Lil Uzi, Cardi B, and Sexy Redd.

Swift's androgynous physique and forename has also led to speculation about the sex of the popstar. Coincidentally, in Swift's video for a song entitled “the Man,” the popstar was portrayed unrecognisably as a bearded man. However unlikely it may seem that Taylor Swift is male, the story has at least one precedent with a man being presented to unsuspecting viewers as a Bond ‘girl.’

Swift also bears an uncanny resemblance to Zeena la Vey, the daughter of founder of the church of Satan, Anton la Vey. Such allusions are not dispelled by performances that portray Swift wearing a devil's facemask, performing in front of a serpent, seemingly engaged in witchcraft, or standing atop a black cube apparently delivering a curse, whilst using hand symbols and gestures in a manner described by Anton la Vey.

The media has reported Swift’s audience members suffering amnesia leading commentators to make connections with Project Artichoke and a Travis Scott concert in 2021 in which several young people died. Parallels have been drawn with the music video for Swift’s song Fortnite, and the CIA’ s MK Ultra mind control program. When Swift was filmed at the NFL in 2024, her companion Ice Spice was seen wearing an inverted cross and making satanic symbols with her hands.

Swift posted on Instagram,

"Witches be like “Sometimes I just want to listen to music while pining away/sulking/staring out a window.” It’s me. I’m witches. Never fear, the “willow lonely witch remix” is here."

Elsewhere, “Former Boyzone star Shane Lynch has accused popstar Taylor Swift of engaging in demonic practices and satanic rituals during her sold-out shows and warned of the damaging effects such music has on children.

Swift, 34, has previously been accused of promoting demonic activity through her music; in her 2020 “Willow” music video, she is shown observing an occult ritual and previously said the song “sounds like casting a spell to make someone fall in love with you.”

Lynch points out that Swift exists in a wider context in which the music industry is 'satanic,' and that recorded, “music is prayed over demonically.” This context is broadened further when the relationship of lockdowns and vaccines with the occult is considered.

As noted by Miri Finch, the media repeatedly reported the fact that the dance class targeted in the alleged Southport stabbings was Taylor Swift themed. This association with celebrity creates a public identification with the storyline. The celebrity of Ariana Grande is tied to the alleged Manchester bombing in this way. As recently as Christmas 2024 Grande brought the incident to the fore by making a donation to a Manchester children’s charity.

As the protagonists in the Manchester event were pictured enjoying meeting Ariana Grande in the week after the event, so the traumatised teacher who was reportedly stabbed five times, lost three students and witnessed ten more being injured, met with royals a couple of months later and then flew to Canada to meet Taylor Swift.

After the Southport incident Swift was also associated with other frightening ordeals. An 11 year old Australian schoolgirl was reportedly stabbed on a trip to see a Taylor Swift concert at Wembley, and a woman fell overboard from a Taylor Swift themed cruise in the Bahamas. Three of Taylor Swift's Eras tour concerts in Austria were cancelled due to an alleged terrorist plot despite the two men alleged to have been involved being arrested. “Austrian security officials said two young men wanted to commit an attack outside the stadium, killing as many people as possible using knives or self-made explosives.”

If the state is attempting to control information then to overlook a celebrity figure with the influence of Taylor Swift would constitute an oversight that could undermine any psychological or propaganda operation. No independent figure could be allowed to accumulate or exercise such influence in case they used their platform to expose state narratives. It stands to reason then that such public figures are controlled. This is an assumption that is further evidenced by the failure of such figures to question official narratives and instead their readiness to promote key agenda points such as lockdowns and vaccines. Their fame is also sometimes used to reinforce fear, through their association with terrorist narratives. It is also possible that they serve a more esoteric purpose by encouraging strong emotional bonds with their young fans who are made suggestible to political or spiritual influence through experiences such as musical performances and concerts.

Thank you for reading and many thanks to my subscribers.
You can help me to write more frequently by

1. Subscribing monthly here on substack

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeaCoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Santander, account number 00758982, sort code 09-01-36, account name F X ONeill (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support enables me to write these articles and is very much appreciated. Thank you.