Approximately 300 Harvard students last Monday attended their first class in a course called “Taylor Swift and Her World” which studies the 34-year-old superstar’s music.
The course, which examines Swift’s records and “economic impact,” is a woke exegesis which explores the “queer subtext” behind her lyrics and how they relate to “White privilege.”
In an article last week titled, “Why I’m Teaching Taylor Swift at Harvard,” course instructor Stephanie Burt was unable to explain why Swift’s music is unique. Burt, who is in a same-sex marriage, merely gushed over how Swift’s songs “speak to my privilege, to my insecurities, to my wish for attention.”
But Burt is not the only one struggling to explain the fuss over Swift, whose music consists almost entirely of breakup songs. To the common naked ear, there is no unique quality about Swift’s voice, lyrics, or style that distinguish her from other boilerplate pop singers. She has broken no cultural barriers like Elvis Presley or Madonna. Her voice leaves no impression like Christina Aguilera’s or Shania Twain’s. Her lyrics are incomparable to the poetry of Bernie Taupin and Leonard Bernstein, and her tunes pale in comparison to the melodic genius of Elton John.
The average listener would be hard-pressed to pick Swift’s work out of a lineup of garden variety pop songs. In other words, there is nothing at all iconic about Swift, other than the fact that her face has been plastered across magazine covers and her name tirelessly venerated by mainstream media for the last three years.
Despite her lack of unique talent, Swift is the biggest music star in the world today. She is worth over a billion dollars and was TIME’s Person of the Year for 2023. Celebrities and actual music icons like Shania Twain attend her concerts. Websites selling tickets to her concert tours have crashed from receiving too many orders. Revenues from her Eras concert tour last year eclipsed the GDP of 50 countries. United Airlines and American Airlines have added Taylor Swift-themed flights to the upcoming SuperBowl in Las Vegas.
But for about two days this week, searches for “Taylor Swift” on X yielded no results, despite Elon Musk’s assurances that the site is a free speech safe haven.
That’s probably because last week some ne’er-do-well netizens shared AI-generated sexual photos of the pop star on X. While that would not normally cause Musk to intervene, the White House reacted to the photos by calling them “alarming” and pressured Congress to pass laws banning such content. Searches for Swift were blocked shortly after.
Many who have been struggling to understand the Swift craze are questioning why the incident sparked a reaction from the White House. Swift is not the first celebrity to be the subject of fake R-rated images, and she won’t be the last. Even her defilements are not unique.
What is unique about Swift is that she was chosen.
“Have you ever wondered how or why she blew up like this?” Fox News host Jesse Watters asked this month before suggesting — like many have — that Swift is a US intelligence asset.
Waters produced footage from August 2019 showing a presentation by an operative from the Pentagon’s Psychological Operations Unit. The presentation, which was given at a NATO conference, floated Swift as a “social influence” asset to disseminate propaganda.
“The idea is that social influence can help encourage or promote behavior change . . . so potentially as like a peaceful information operation,” said the presenter. “I’ve included Taylor Swift in here because she’s a fairly influential online person, I don’t know if you’ve heard of her,” she added.
And indeed, Swift soon after began to embody the globalist agenda of our ruling class. Through her music, she started to promote gender ideology. In addition to being an outspoken feminist, she railed against Whites and publicly accused President Trump of “stoking the fires of White supremacy and racism.” She has been active against Israel, even attending a glitzy anti-Israel benefit following the October 7th massacre last year.
But Swift’s establishment ties extend further. Last year the pop star entered into a relationship with football star Travis Kelce, a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs. Kelce, who has refused to stand for the national anthem at football games, is a paid spokesman for Pfizer and has been featured in commercials promoting the COVID-19 vaccine. Kelce’s $20 million deal with Pfizer is $6 million more than his annual salary.
A staunch supporter of the Democratic Party, Swift has not only weighed in on presidential races but has even endorsed Democratic candidates in congressional races. California Governor Gavin Newsom said last year that Swift’s influence on the 2024 general election will be “profoundly powerful.”
Sure enough, Swift is a major player in Biden’s “anti-Trump battle plan,” according to the New York Times, and is expected to help sway the election in Biden’s favor. 18% of voters say they are more likely to back Swift’s candidate, according to recent polls, and the pop star reportedly tops the list of endorsements coveted by Joe Biden’s team.
“Fund-raising appeals from Ms. Swift could be worth millions of dollars for Mr. Biden,” reported the New York Times Monday.
Although political elites like Liz Cheney have declared Taylor Swift a “national treasure,” many find the pop star’s music and performances forgettable.
And after she has served her purpose, she will be.
