Saving Britney Follow Up

Response to Article Feedback

Whenever I publish an article that garners significant attention, I like to follow up with a written response before moving on. I feel like I owe it to my readers, and surely my latest post is deserving of that. But in doing so, I look forward to setting the Britney story aside and moving on for reasons I previously mentioned.

As expected, the post I shared last week was mangled by a few brainless personalities on TikTok and Twitter who jump at any excuse to react in an uproar so they can frame responses with obnoxious sentiments, bad music, missing facts and super annoying (nearly nauseating) hyper zoom effects. Naturally, this wakes up and unites all my previous haters online. Whenever I present a new “controversial” theory, the woke zombies, bitter Amber stans, Effie supporters, Markle lovers and Newsom diehards, start crawling out of the woodwork to bridge newly united attacks on me because they disagree with yet another piece I wrote. Instead of simply unfollowing or ignoring, they devote their spare time to harassing people with generic and often crude insults. 

Since publishing the “Saving Britney” article, I have been harassed relentlessly via threatening text messages and emails. I ignore, block, delete and repeat all while finding their entitlement astounding. How delusional must some people be to believe that everything on the internet should cater to their beliefs? How naive must they be to think they can wander around online without ever being occasionally offended?  Getting triggered by a private Substack article and complaining about it on Reddit is no different than binge watching a TV show you literally can’t stand, then bitching about it for weeks, hoping you can recruit like-minded haters who hated the show as much as you did. No one is being held hostage here and certainly not everyone is welcome either. I use the block button more than ever these days. If someone calls me a bitch, I block. If someone taunts or insults me in a disrespectful way, I block. I realized (far too late) that I can’t please everyone. These faceless strangers offer nothing of substance and never present criticism that is constructive, so why not strip them of access to my site when they outright disrespect it? If people want to debate me, they can approach me with questions- not triggered emotions and tired accusations, many of which have lost their power thanks to the callous way they’ve been overused. 

Despite the backlash I’ve faced, I refuse to let uninformed fanatics hinder me. I’ve been through this enough times now to know the best revenge is to keep it moving with continued efforts and steady convictions. My success torments them and my political liberation infuriates them. The fact that I can mingle gossip with straightforward journalism without having an editor stopping or rearranging me enrages them. The whole point of Substack, though, is to elevate independent writers so we can express our opinions without the obnoxious roadblocks guised as warnings about “misinformation” by fact checkers paid for by political censors that seek to restrict what news and narratives are allowed to exist online. People subscribe to the writers here because they are sick of being patronized by parental guidance embraced by the media we no longer feel informed, considered or connected to. Alternative options are filling this void. It is up to independent journalists to go harder and dig their heels even deeper to push forward without concern for the inevitable hate their stories may invite. In this case, I had to remind myself of this. 

I surely didn’t expect that addressing addiction would be so contentious, but then again, common sense is a threat these days. 

---

ADDRESSING A MIX OF RESPONSES 

• First and foremost, the article was published on my Substack channel for paid readers. I didn't even promote it. I know my paid audience appreciates that narratives here can sometimes shift, as humiliating as that is for me to admit.  However,  these lunatics hijacked a paid article and reinterpreted it in dumbed-down edits they spoon-fed their audience, so none of their followers actually took the time to sit down and digest the full piece that was intentionally released behind a paywall.  All I saw from these TikTokers was lazy, reckless, ill-informed commentary, somehow managing to make their entire post all about them. Ego-exactly as I predicted. The piece was about the tragic reality of an undiscussed addiction, but all the Britney stans could focus on were themselves. That’s because, for many of them, Britney’s sickness has become part of their identity and her suffering is fodder for their “cause.” If Britney sought help or got better, they would lose what unites and empowers them- continual dissection of her menial fragility. Meanwhile, they will continue their sensational examinations of every part of her mood, words, and body, as these reaction videos garner the most views for them. The stranger Britney acts on camera, the more content they have to dissect, further exploiting her manic behavior for clicks. 

• What’s the most baffling to me, is that many of these TikTokers are ranting about things we actually agree on. They can’t decipher where their outrage should be directed so they call me a “money-hungry conspiracy theorist,” even though the whole point of my article was to say I no longer want to be part of the story. This take is stripped of any wild conspiracies. But for some reason,  this simple, somber angle doesn’t garner viral attention most of them are looking for. Many of these stan accounts have merch attached to their sites, so the incessant analysis of Britney is really in their better interest. They keep up with every conspiracy, examining everything from the shape of her nostrils, to the locations of her molars, to the reflections in her sunglasses, but outright refuse to address the saddest, most obvious piece of the story. I wrote “Saving Britney” to confess that I feel wrong tracking her any longer because I know what she is struggling with privately. Somehow that honest admission made me their number one enemy.

• Re: the timing. I have known about Britney’s addiction for many months but was waiting for someone else to break the story. Daphne happened to be the one to break it through the Daily Mail. This gave me an opportunity to share my honest stance on why I haven’t been covering Britney like I used to, a question I get asked from my followers all the time. I know more than what I shared in my article (from sources of my own) but included only what felt necessary and appropriate to exit the story. 

• I included the bit about Daphne because I prefer an element of BTS in all of my coverage. I value transparency and like bringing my readers along with me. If I left that part out, the story would feel dishonest. But quite frankly, I don’t care what anyone thinks about any of my acquaintances. I associate with all walks of life. I always have and always will. That’s never going to change. In fact, I would argue it’s my greatest trait. As I mentioned before, I connected with Daphne due to questions I had about Ghislaine Maxwell. When we spoke, she was fascinated by the fact that I was “self made,” and I respected that she was one of the first women to ever be syndicated and own the rights to all of her content. I don’t need to align with someone entirely to find them “worthy” of my time. I grew up in the 90s so I don’t play by these ridiculous millennial/Gen Z rules. The gloried gossip reporters of my day mingled with celebrities, lawyers and social bigwigs in all kinds of dazzling settings because a varied circle is what provided their stories with the intimate & dynamic details that made them so popular. So, spare me the new age assumptions that we are who we engage with. I’m not paid or persuaded by outside forces. I’m just obsessively curious about all kinds of people.  That same week — in addition to Daphne — I met up with all of these women too: Jen (an awesome expert on all of my favorite conspiracies shared in long series on TikTok who brought me up to date on the latest UFO info), Emilie (“Green Girl’ the archivist behind @kanyesposts),  Meghann (a badass court reporter I met during the Weinstein trial who is catching me up on the latest Masterson verdict) Molly (an old high school friend of mine who writes for New Mexico Magazine) A JonBenet source (helping me arrange our upcoming podcast conversation), A Florida prison inmate (in jail with Ghislaine Maxwell), and Alyte (the amazing woman behind the popular streaming site ‘Legal Bytes’) This is the variety I strive for. 

• And to the TikTok shouters demanding that I reveal my sources- you are insane. I would NEVER reveal my sources. This is the reason I get the sources! They come to me because they trust I will protect them and are hoping their side will expand the truth. No one in their right mind would spill secrets to the biased blabbering fools I see in so many of these ranting videos. This is why we are not the same. One of them referred to me as a “motherfucker” so I responded to the person who posted it. I wrote what an “annoying woman she was,” but apparently she identifies as Nonbinary, so from there, I became a “transphobic motherfucker.” 

• I do see things differently now. I am not agreeing or defending the conservatorship but I do believe the real story is more complicated than Britney stans are willing to accept. Essentially, the whole Spears family was eaten alive and destroyed by the entertainment business. Simple southerners with an immensely talented and beautiful daughter were obliterated by the music industry and the corruption her fame attracted. I still believe all of the shady court connections that have been uncovered, and definitely see Lou Taylor as the main villain. However, I think there is more to the Jamie Lynn and Lynne Spears angle considering Lynne was abused by Jamie, who was an awful alcoholic for many years. I do think initially they were trying to save their daughter’s life, but those intentions got warped by sinister parties that poured in to reap new profit. Even though Britney struggled with addiction back then (just like she does now), I never once said she deserved to be under the control of a conservatorship. I believe Britney always deserved freedom and wonder how different the outcome would have been had she not been under the control of sinister conservators. 

• The Daily Mail’s “METH” reference was a shock factor. “Crystal Meth” was originally quoted in the article. People who are not familiar with drug lingo immediately assumed the vision of her smoking crack out of a pipe, but that’s not the case. Meth comes in many forms and uppers in the entertainment industry are nothing new, dating all the way back to Judy Garland who used uppers to keep her stamina high during grueling hours on tour. If you can’t see all the signs of amphetamines in so many of her dance videos, you are either in denial, or just not aware of common methamphetamine side effects.  If Britney is mixing narcotics, as some sources suggest, it can lead to a very dangerous situation. As I understand it, Britney has struggled with addiction on and off sine the start of her career. If you look back at the old videos from her and Kevin’s short-lived show “Chaotic,” the signs were there. We’ve also heard from other celebrity sources (like Kanye West) that she was forced on lithium during various treatments, which Britney herself has stated. So I’m wondering why, when they had so much control over her during this period, they didn’t try harder to get her clean. They just switched her drugs instead.

• No one trusts Cade Hudson- for good reason. This guy’s track record proves he’s always been a sleazeball. Don’t forget, in 2013, he was caught allegedly offering actors sex in exchange for access to directors and celebrities, as reported by the LA Times. Text messages obtained by the newspaper show Hudson was offering to perform oral sex on Sean Rose (who is heterosexual), soliciting the actor for as much as $1,000. Back when I was covering Britney’s court hearings, I noticed Cade blocked me even though I never mentioned his name. That was a big red flag for me.  It seemed pretty fishy, almost as if he was stressing about what I might uncover about him eventually. 

• Kevin Federline is not a victim. Kevin signed the contract for the documentary. He wanted money to spill details about Britney. He was the one who leaked the videos of Britney yelling at her boys. Daphne now owns the footage. The documentary is coming out no matter what. Those 12 days will be revealed in the fall and he has no control over what will be included. Kevin’s been living off Britney’s money since their divorce. His wife and her gambling problem isn’t exactly shocking news either. Daphne was fairly scathing in her criticism of the two and their insistence on trashing Britney, but the whole situation of “six kids living under one roof and two lazy but attentive parents” is stuff we already knew. Daphne’s article merely put a number on the payout he receives from Britney monthly which then made her question why he could not afford, say … a dining table, or care enough to clean up dog poop littered around his yard before a television crew was set to arrive. The detail describing how their landscaping has “no planted flowers” only accentuates their lack of pride in their home environment. 

• The move to Hawaii is definitely financially motivated. The Federlines have been racking up debt in Los Angeles and child support is nearing cutoff.  Another undiscussed theory about why Britney signed off without a fight,  is that had she not, her boys would have been forced to testify before a judge about her treatment of them ( Which … if you’re willing to get really honest about this whole thing, has been very sad). 

• To those upset that I called her pregnancy fake, I apologize. I truly believe the pregnancy was fake. If I didn’t believe it, I wouldn’t have included it. My point was not to shame her, but to highlight another example of how collective denial is only enabling an unwell person. We ignore what we don’t want to believe because no one knows how to confront it honestly. 

• Britney’s wedding was also a fraud. At least we can agree on that. Britney’s wedding was probably one of the weirdest things I’ve seen in pop culture. The timing The guests. The groom. Britney running around the dance floor in a thong with a tuxedo jacket. It was all undeniably uncomfortable to watch. None of her family was there because her boys have refused to see her until she gets help.  Even a wedding, which should be celebrated by all,  wasn’t enough to reunite her old friends and family who she still remains isolated from.

• Britney is the one behind her Instagram. The stans refuse to accept this, but I know it to be the true.

• Britney’s own bullying goes completely overlooked. Really, what other celebrity account could get away with the things she says? There are so many instances of her viciously shaming people in captions. Sometimes it's her sons, other times it’s her peers, family, or fellow celebrities. Christina Aguilera unfollowed her after she shared a body shaming post directed at her. On another occasion, after her sister Jamie Lynne shared a photo from her daughter’s Barbie themed birthday party, Britney appeared shortly after in a pink dress with a caption that read “Barbie my ass,” as response to her 5 year old niece’s celebration. Remember when she publicly slammed that fast food employee who kindly tried to console her when she was parked crying in her car with the windows down. 'She wrote: “he doesn't KNOW ME and I sure as hell didn't know his ass,” before suggesting that the person was being invasive since they weren't family. She has done the same things to her boys. Berating them in front of the whole world whenever she’s unhappy with them.

• She is not clueless to the power of her captions in posts. Because her moods are so unpredictable anyone around her is at constant risk of public shaming if she decides to rant about them on Instagram. When that happens it causes real havoc for whomever is in the hot seat that now has to deal with the death threats and the army of bullies that attack whenever she speaks out to drag someone.

  ---

  

This woman makes a lot of sense.

Addressing the “Yes Queens”

*Skip the commercials - “I found out there was only way to look thin. Hang out with fat people.”

---

Britney’s boys are the overlooked victims in this tragic situation.

Yet rarely acknowledged as such. These boys are living in constant humiliation over what has become sport for masses of online spectators. This is what mainly drove me away. My boys are the same age as hers. I would never subject them to this kind of embarrassment.

Knowing they have requested that she not post their photos anymore is especially heartbreaking because she continues to share images of them alongside nearly naked videos of her gyrating in bikini bottoms in all of these manic dance videos.

Why is no one addressing how awful it must be for teenage boys to endure this? Why have we all silently agreed to not question anything about her words and actions, even when it’s impacting her children in such a negative way?

Is it ok that we turn our heads anytime she uses captions to berate them in front of millions of strangers, or ignore them when they tell us they fear her addiction will one day kill her?

In the most disturbing cases, some stans even blame her sons for turning against her. Screenshots unearthed show them writing that her boys should be in body bags because of them being “traitors” to their mom. And my own sons are being dragged now by these same people, in slides so horrible that when people find them they inform me of them, but refuse to send them my way. This will be a topic here soon. The unhinged bullying these people have gotten away with for years in the name of Britney’s “defense.”

Stay tuned for that.

---

Jayden Spears in his own words // Fox interview September, 2022

“In an explosive interview with Australia's "60 Minutes," Jayden discussed his rocky relationship with his mother.

Spears can be heard saying in an Instagram, "With my kids now, making the claims that ‘She’s not good enough. She wants attention,' Yah, I do want to be heard, and I'm angry. And I kind of subconsciously want to offend people because I've been so f-----g offended." She then said directly to her two sons, "But I'm afraid to inform you guys, I'm not willing to see you until I feel valued."

Sean, 16 and Jayden, 15, sat down with filmmaker Daphne Barak to discuss Spears in an interview that airs on Friday. Jayden shared that he has "no hate" for his mother, despite not attending her wedding to Sam Asghari.

"I 100% think this can be fixed," he said, per the Daily Mail. "It's just going to take a lot of time and effort. I just want her to get better mentally. When she gets better I really want to see her again."

---

Jayden on 60 Minutes / Britney responds to interview

---

"Preston and I are very united. He is always looking out for me and I am looking out for him. We make sure that we are both healthy mentally," he said.

Addressing Spears during the interview, he added, "I love you a lot, I hope for the best for you. Maybe one day we can sit down like this and talk again."

Jayden addressed his absence from his mother’s June wedding. "At the time it just wasn't a good time to go. I'm not saying that I'm not happy for her," he said. "I'm really happy for them, but she didn't invite the whole family and then if it was just going to be me and Preston, I just don't see how that situation would have ended on good terms."

According to Jayden, the brothers are "very united" and are each other’s support system.

Spears 13-year conservatorship came to an end in November. Jayden shared that his grandfather, Jamie Spears, "doesn't deserve all the hatred he is getting in the media. I love him, with all my heart. He was just trying to be a father."

"At first he was just trying to be like any father letting her pursue her daughter's dream of becoming a superstar but I did think maybe the conservatorship went on too long, probably why my Mum was very angry about the whole situation that she was working for too long and I personally think she was. She should have taken a break and relaxed."

Jayden shared that his older brother, Sean, is not a fan of the cameras and asked Spears not to post pictures of him online which she did anyway and "it didn't go well."

He said that posting on Instagram "helps" his mother. "Social media helps her," he began. "So if that's what she wants to do that's what she wants to do, I'm not going to hate her for that. At the same time, she should come to the realization of whatever it is that stops her loving her family."

Jayden continued: "It's almost like she has to post something on Instagram to get some attention. This has gone on for years and years and years and there's a high chance that this will never stop but I'm hoping for me that she will stop."

During the two boy’s childhood, Jayden shared that Spears has "treated me better" than Preston.

"I think Mom has struggled giving us both attention and showing us equal love & I don't think she showed enough to Preston and I feel really bad for that," he began. "We've both been through so much pressure in the past that this is our safe place now, to process all the emotional trauma we've been through to heal, heal our mental state."

Next up: Forth update on the Moscow Murders