Note: All images in this post were created with Bing AI. While it is extremely useful (and fun) to transpose a concept into an image, please excuse its shortcomings in rendering text, which is often misspelled.

Curiously, it’s well-accepted that there are different rules for the rich and influential, compared to the masses. From their borderline (or blatantly) illegal ventures to their ability to escape accountability for personal misconduct, they often seem to operate with impunity.

People claim to understand that – yet collectively, again and again, they behave as if they didn’t.

They turn the oligarch into the underdog, the white collar criminal into a target of political persecution, the violent abuser into a victim, the compulsive liar and fantasist into a truth teller, the narcissist and megalomaniac into a realist, and why not, the psychopath, who has no regard for human life, into a would-be saviour of humanity.

Facts go out the window. Their lived experience with such people and similar behaviour flies right after. The circles the rich and influential operate within are so remote from the average person that their actions and morals are not put through the same strainer as everyone else’s.

Using opportunism and demagoguery at the right time, well-paid PR (up to astroturfing social media with bots), by being nostalgic figures, or by being an outlet for people’s inner ugliness and prejudices, the worst elements can rise to the level of being worshipped by the masses.

Without the money and fame, such characters would not only be reviled – many would be in prison.

When someone is adored by the public, through astroturfing or not, the following cease to matter, even if they are likely relevant to assessing their current personas:

  • A history of incompetence or criminality;
  • A history of compulsive lying and false promises;
  • Obvious corruption; conflicts of interest; opportunism;
  • Proven personal misconduct of any kind;
  • A flurry of allegations of misconduct overtime, made by different people (for instance sexual misconduct or domestic abuse);
  • A history of violence, vandalism etc.;
  • Any traits generally seen as detrimental (narcissism, vindictiveness, ignorance compiled with claims of omniscience, sociopathy etc.).

For the following stereotypes, I’m asking for a small exercise of imagination, as to how people with the exact same behaviours, minus the money and fame, are perceived and treated by society. This will reveal the level of public blindness and hypocrisy.

Con artist + money & fame = “genius”

If someone in a crack house tried to sell you a fantasy of colonising Mars within your lifetime to save the human species, while high as a kite, asking you to sponsor their immediate ventures as they’re just that brilliant, you’d probably pass.

If Elon Musk, whose favourite two words are “next year”, ever reaches Mars, it will be on the same spaceship that took the good people of Heaven’s Gate in ’97. Perhaps he goes there regularly on his ketamine trips. Perhaps he’s met them out there. Despite his mind being addled by a cocktail of drugs, which is common knowledge, and his ventures constantly failing, exploding rockets included (also common knowledge), some still believe that he is the hope of this entire planet.

Musk has repeatedly proven to be an egomaniacal scam artist with the poorest personal skills, which means there is no logic to how he manages his companies either, as former employees have detailed. Promises are inflated, safety warnings from employees are routinely ignored, lawsuits for horrible accidents involving Teslas are piling up.

Elon Musk gets 8 million dollars a day in subsidies and government contracts for his companies. This comes out of public US funds. Two of his rockets exploded this year after launching, about a month apart, forcing airport closures and causing environmental damage. He ran a 250 million dollar scam, promising a sports car and taking payment in advance, without the car ever materialising. The list goes on and on. He is better than PT Barnum at selling hot air.

It recently turned out (not that it wasn’t noticeable) that he’d been having a major drug use problem as well, for quite some time. This unelected individual was let loose on governmental institutions, of which he severely damaged some and incapacitated others. While high on drugs.

Although his popularity dwindles by the day, especially after his public shit-throwing show with Trump, some still consider him a true visionary and genius, bound to have a net positive effect on this planet. They will hear no evidence to the contrary.

Violent addict + money & fame = “eccentric artist”

We all remember Johnny Depp. The magazines remember him even better, having documented his violence and unhinged states for over three decades. Assaults, threatening behaviour, rampant vandalism (property smashing), arson on occasion. In his societal stratum (obscenely wealthy and a popular icon) one can even brag about the consumption of illegal drugs, in copious amounts, and illegal acts in general. No one cares.

About the prospect of mind-altering substances altering behaviour in a negative way, especially if one is prone to it, and also unaccountable, no one cares either. About the coercive control and intimidating vandalism he admitted to in relation to Amber Heard, never mind the verbal abuse, no one cares either. About her proof of physical abuse, as well as witness testimony, even less. He’s just eccentric.

Depp smashed properties like there was no tomorrow. His lackeys would foot the bill for the clean-up and repairs in the morning, on his behalf.

Imagine for a second that Johnny was an unemployed deadbeat dad living in a caravan park, drinking cheap lager and vodka every other day and using drugs bought on a back alley.

Imagine that instead of high end properties, he would smash the caravan his family lived in, causing damage that unlike Johnny, he couldn’t afford to fix. His animalistic shouting matches could be heard by many and he would be picked up by the police ever few weeks, spending the night in a cell, always forgiven and supported by his wife in the morning.

We are talking about the exact same behaviours here, suffered by the wife, witnessed by the children and his immediate circle.

Could this (existing and widespread) stereotype sue anybody for defamation, in relation to his violence and abusiveness? Not that he would have the money to sue to begin with, which is another factor. However, if he tried, would anyone take him seriously?

Depp’s immediate circle depended on his deep pockets for sustenance, never mind they made good money. They will prospectively make even more money once he dies, can no longer sue anybody and they start publishing memoires on the “real Johnny” (I bet they’re working on them right now, while cirrhosis slowly gets him).

The entire saga of his defamation trials (two, one of which he lost, which everyone seems to forget) was sordid and filled with these hyenas, financially motivated to lie for him. The industry knew him well, the press certainly did, and the public should’ve known him as well (especially an adoring public he managed to draw out of the sewers during his side show). However, nothing known about him mattered at that moment, apart from their infatuation with him.

Johnny was a creative genius and sensitive soul, according to them, melting people’s hearts with publicity stunts such as showing up at children’s hospitals dressed up as a pirate, much like the stunts politicians pull. If Billy Bob depicted above showed up at a children’s hospital dressed in a costume, reeking of vodka and stumbling over his words and feet, would he be allowed in, to create a positive moment for the children by entertaining them? No; the hospital would call the police.

Domestic abuse is not cushioned by money. What a woman experiences (control, verbal abuse, violence, obsessive jealousy) is identical in any circumstances, in terms of effect.

If Billy Bob had tried to control his wife’s social interactions or work (let’s say she was a cashier), people would tell him to control himself first, which he obviously couldn’t. After decades of this behaviour, Billy Bob would be written off by society as hopeless – not worshipped by millions of people. He would get the odd “I’ll pray for you” from church, and encouragements to stick to rehab this time, but that’s about it.

White collar criminal + money & fame + cult worship = “maverick”

For this issue, it seems, other elements are needed in order for the masses to be blind to someone’s rapacity and opportunism.

People tend to have a visceral disdain towards scam artists, whether it’s the “Nigerian prince” stealing from the elderly or the mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme. By the time he went to prison, Sam Bankman Fried was not too popular. Neither was Elizabeth Holmes. Neither was Bernie Madoff.

The issue is straightforward when someone is chiefly known for lying in order to appropriate other people’s money. Hardly anyone, to reserve a margin of error, feels sorry when they end up in prison.

Perception seems to change when dealing with a public figure appreciated and even adored for breaking the rules, when this is seen as a positive trait. Someone who provides hopes, dreams and vindication to a crowd, even for a perceived victimhood status. Someone like Donald Trump.

The mere notion of financial crimes, or any other lawbreaking goes out the window. The person is simply morally unblemished and cannot have done something out of pure greed and shamelessness. There has to be some other reason behind it, MAGA and Q-Anon infer. And if citizens becoming poorer for his enrichment is the price to pay for having him in power, enacting cruelty on the groups they hate, it matters little, they reckon.

Financial crimes are justified and supported when such a person is in power. Trump, as an autocrat, can do whatever the hell he likes with the public purse, disregarding any laws and regulations. His 39 criminal convictions and bribes by foreign countries no longer matter either. The law simply doesn’t apply to him. L’etat, c’est moi.

A demagogue, when getting people sufficiently invested in his saviour myth, gets away with anything, perception-wise.

Ignorant loud mouth + money & fame = political streamer

A few years ago, a new business model arose: streaming oneself playing video games, while talking about anything whatsoever, for hours on end. While the appeal eludes me, this proved very popular, especially with young people.

The streamer known as Asmongold, recently known for supporting the genocide of the Palestinians, started his career by doing just that. It’s utterly surprising to read that he got a business degree, or a degree at all, given how limited his vocabulary seems and how utterly torn straight from Idiocracy he appears to be. While focusing on videogames initially, he described himself (and filmed himself) as a version of the image below. Granted, the roaches climbing on him while streaming were not as large in real life.

One could appreciate this type of creator as fringe, niche, whatever a person might want to call him. That would be fair enough.

However, as of 2025, he is the most popular political streamer as well, courtesy of how the internet works, never mind his takes being imbecilic and more simplistic than even half of MAGA’s. Never mind his vocabulary being as simplistic as that of an 8-year-old, and the mindset not far off.

Asmongold majorly rose to prominence during Depp’s astroturfed farce of a defamation case. It turns out that like many on YouTube, he made bank from mocking a domestic abuse victim. You know what they say: if you can’t beat the roaches, join them.

A similar case is the streamer Destiny, boasting millions of fans, also having started his career streaming himself playing videogames. This individual (who, in recent months, turned out to be a sex offender and admitted to recording and sharing intimate material of himself and other people), rose to such prominence due to sheer viewership that he ended up debating Prof. Norman Finkelstein on whether Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

Finkelstein, who has painstakingly documented the situation in Palestine for many decades and has written books on the subject, was debating this arrogant, ignorant, petulant gamer spewing mainstream media platitudes.

This debate was, even conceptually, anomalous.

It’s how the world seems to work nowadays.

Rapist/ wife-beater + money & fame = “victim of a witch hunt”

An aggressive person, either sexually or not, is quite often known, as the behaviour tends to start with smaller acts of against other people’s boundaries. This isn’t always the case, of course. However, when found guilty in court, the community generally accepts the accusations as true.

Not so for the rich and famous, icons to many, whose daughters (or sons) they are unlikely to ever meet, let alone rape. Quite the opposite happens. People fawn and support them. “We believe you”. “We love you”. “Stay strong”.

Hoards of strangers, who don’t know the accused or the victim/ victims personally, pick a side based on popularity alone.

Depp is, of course, an example – however, this archetype needn’t revolve around substances, necessarily, but on a power trip and whatever psychological issues the person may have. The power trip is fuelled in part by the belief (unfortunately correct) that the rapist or wife beater is too popular for the victim to ever be believed.

The rapist/ wife-beater may embody an ideal that crowds refuse to let go of; far-right MMA fighter Conor McGregor would be one example. Although he was found liable in court for having sexually assaulted a woman, it didn’t matter to his supporters, who want him to play a political role in Ireland, as a far-right mouthpiece. Granted, the types supporting this man aren’t necessarily opposed to rape as a concept.

The backlash against the MeToo movement was swift and virulent, seeking to pull men, particularly young ones, towards the far-right by making them believe men in general were being oppressed by psychotic witches.

Some on YouTube have made careers out of defending the reputations of men accused of rape, domestic violence or paedophilia. Often, creators have switched to this automated stance after being accused of something themselves, perhaps lesser in gravity, like being sex pests (such as Andy Signore).

Then there are the men who suddenly find Jesus after it comes out that they may be serial rapists – see Russell Brand, the ideological chameleon, curiously turned Christian and Trump supporter after accusations against him by several women came out in the media. He was recently charged with sexual offences in the UK.

The predator defender brigade only jumps to the rescue of right wing/ far-right characters. It’s a club of sorts. Conversion was necessary.

Brand’s online defenders are even more curious, as they were happy to call him a rapist and degenerate while he was supposedly on the left. Now that he has suddenly turned MAGA, the poor man is the victim of a witch hunt. Aren’t they all.

Sadistic bully/ psychopath + money and fame = “strong leader”

Many shysters have gained adulation by being adjacent to the field of psychology, empathising with audience members over experiences with “toxic people”. It’s a very efficient hook, as every single person has had to deal with arseholes at some point. They discuss power dynamics, bullying, abuse, malevolence.

Then they turn around and worship someone like Trump.

It’s commonly accepted that behaviours exhibited by narcissistic or sociopathic people are at least psychologically damaging, if not downright dangerous.

It is also commonly accepted that 1) murder is bad, and 2) multiple/ serial murder is even worse. When discussing individual cases, this is clear enough to everyone.

In the words of Stalin, one person matters, while a million people are just a number (paraphrasing). That is sadly very, very true, when talking about human suffering imposed on large groups or even mass murder.

While a person sitting at home, behind a computer screen, perceives themselves as an individual 24/7, the rest of the world (minus family, friends, acquaintances, small associated groups and at times their ethnic group or nation) is comprised of nebulous blobs.

When decisions are made to impoverish, starve or outright decimate a group or nation across the world, it’s seen as a forgettable headline.

It is thus less concerning that those in power treat the world like a Monopoly game, deciding who should live or die; whose life should be ruined with one stroke of a pen. The moral implications of cruelty are seldom considered.

About this image and similar ones: it’s impossible to give prompts using the likeness of a public figure, as it’s a policy violation. The AI somehow gets around it and understands what the prompt is hinting at. Hilarious.

Compulsive liar + money & fame = “natural born entertainer”

When people watched Casey Anthony lie so naturally, over and over again, about the whereabouts of her young daughter, they were aghast. How could she pull it off and not lose her composure once? What type of strange creature was she?

However, when faced with “they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the pets” and “100 million dollars spent on condoms for Hamas”, MAGA concluded that Trump didn’t need to be factually correct (ever), but merely on their ideological side of the fence. Nothing else mattered.

Any proclamation coming from fascists can be hyperbole or alternative facts, as long as they’re somewhere in the same galaxy as reality, or can be perceived as such.

Plus – isn’t Trump funny? Doesn’t he entertain the masses with his little nicknames for representatives of the opposition? Isn’t that what life is all about? Sure, he talks out of his back orifice all the time, but hey ho – nobody needs informed decisions made in good faith, based on facts.

In any other facet of life, of high or small importance, one would expect exactly that – but not from the leader of their country, go figure. The world could not function if, say, 30% of people operated in bad faith, out to deceive, rob, malign, scapegoat others daily. It would be mayhem.

Paolo Macchiarini was an exception among doctors; so were a few others. Most doctors are not psychopathic fraudsters. The ones who are are caught, expelled, convicted and remembered for posterity, as case studies.

No, it’s not normal for a population to accept a compulsive liar and fraudster in a position of power over people’s lives, their own included.

Pimp + money & fame = “brilliant business man”

It’s difficult to imagine many occupations more disgusting than pimping out women, especially against their will, by trafficking them to a foreign country and taking their passports, or controlling them to the point they don’t think they can leave.

Andrew and Tristan Tate are proud purveyors of educational material for men on how to pimp in order to become rich. Andrew Tate described in detail, on camera, how to lure, traffic, control young women (including by beating them) and steal from them using lies.

The two became popular not before disseminating such “courses”, but while doing so.

It didn’t occur to any of their followers (who presumably have female relatives at least, unless they were shot straight out of Satan’s rectum), that if a man was that brilliant, as many men have been and continue to be on this planet, he would have no need to sell access to women’s privates in order to make money.

If a man was smart and immoral, but seeking to preserve a degree of respectability (as most crooks do), there were surely other avenues to become rich, and even con, that did not involve impersonating women online to tug at the wallets of horny and desperate men.

It’s not just disgusting; it’s utterly stupid. It’s pathetic.

The crowd worshipping Tate seeks to perspire masculinity, strength, leadership, astuteness. Tate was sexting men from behind a computer screen, pretending to be a woman, to get their money (closet case if you ask me). I will never understand the appeal.

Loudmouth versatile offender/ thug + money & fame = “freedom fighter”

If people what to know what Tommy Robinson (not his real name) has done stints in prison for, they can easily look it up. Mortgage fraud, travelling abroad with fake passports, assaulting a policeman who had intervened when Robinson was being aggressive with his wife, contempt of court and I’m missing others, perhaps. Tommy Robinson was never imprisoned for his fascist beliefs and incitement against minority groups, Muslims in particular.

He has focused on talking publicly about violent individuals and grooming gangs, claiming only, or mostly Muslim men engaged in these offences – he is supported, paradoxically, by the same crowd supporting Andew Tate, the human trafficker. Let that sink in.

People, generally, are not fond of thugs, especially those with multiple stints in prison. They particularly don’t want these characters recruiting their sons and courting their daughters. Such characters are, to put it succinctly, bad news.

It’s obviously hilarious that a man who decries people entering a country illegally, who can’t be vetted and might be criminals, tried to do just that, flying to the US with a fake passport, as he wouldn’t have been allowed in because of his criminal record. It’s perfect. It’s poetic.

A segment of the population, particularly in England, sees Robinson as a persecuted truth-teller (never mind he would’ve been arrested and sentenced for these offences, as would anyone else, without the political caper).

Playing on people’s fears and bigotry works with the masses, as well as narcissists on drugs – Elon Musk preferred Robinson to Farage, when planning to sponsor Reform. Musk has zero understanding of what makes an astute politician with a chance of winning, at least in the UK. Farage, unfortunately, is guarded enough in terms of language to appeal to a broader part of the population. Hopefully not enough, and hopefully watching the chaos unfolding in the US paints a clear picture of what a fascist future would look like. Canada and Australia have already said no to that proposition this year. But I digress.

Robinson is known to have received at least 2 million pounds in donations and sponsorships overtime, from entities seeking to bolster fascism in the UK. He has close ties with Zionist entities, including financial ones. He is backed by deep pockets, seeking to fuel hatred of Muslims in the UK and the world at large.

The conclusion of this post will be that people never learn. Not collectively, anyway.

Historically, there have been many Depps (included here as his kangaroo court show impacted women around the world), and Robinsons, and Musks, and even Trumps (although the position of the latter, tied to the current position of the US, makes the situation unique in terms of his power).

Either the world understands, excises these types like tumours and heals, or we are all doomed to keep repeating the same patterns, of worshipping scum and endorsing or committing injustice at their beckoning, until some natural disaster gets us.

I would prefer the first version of this scenario.