I haven’t reported much on the Johnny Depp trial. I probably should have because it is relevant to my interests that this drug-addled life-failure guy completely destroyed a stupid bitch who tried to wreck him.
But it was just kind of boring to me, and I didn’t have time to sit around watching these court room scenes, so it felt best to just let it go. There was so much coverage of it everywhere, it’s not like people couldn’t find other coverage of it.
But yeah – he won.
This basically destroys the entire metoo movement, as it is now known as a legal fact that women will just lie outrageously for their own material benefit.
A Virginia jury ruled in favor of actor Johnny Depp in a libel suit against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, finding that she defamed him with accusations of domestic abuse.
Depp was awarded $15 million in damages, though that may be reduced by law. Heard’s counter-suit was largely dismissed, with the jury finding Depp defamed her in only one instance, awarding $2 million in damages.
Depp sued Heard for $50 million, accusing her of libel in a 2018 Washington Post op-ed insinuating that he was a domestic abuser. Heard counter-sued for $100 million, saying Depp’s lawyer defamed her by calling the accusation a hoax. The trial opened on April 11 and went to the jury last Friday. It took three working days for the seven-person civil jury in Fairfax, Virginia to return the unanimous verdict.
Two out of three of Heard’s counts were dismissed, with the ‘Aquaman’ star getting awarded $2 million in damages for one instance the jury considered defamation – a statement made by Adam Waldman, the attorney who represented Depp in the divorce proceedings. Depp was awarded $10 million in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages, though the latter may be capped by law to around $350,000.
The two actors started dating in 2011 and got married in February 2015. Heard filed for divorce just 15 months later, accusing Depp of having physically abused her and securing a temporary restraining order against the Oscar-nominated actor.
Depp denied the abuse and said Heard made the allegation “to secure a premature financial resolution” in the divorce proceedings, which were finalized in 2017.
In their respective defamation lawsuits, each had accused the other of destroying their career. Depp was dropped from a major role in the ‘Fantastic Beasts’ series of Harry Potter prequels.
Heard kept her role in the ‘Aquaman’ sequel, but her screen time has reportedly been drastically cut and a fan petition to have her cut entirely has attracted millions of signatures.
During the trial, Depp revealed that Disney had removed him from the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ franchise over Heard’s allegations, while continuing to use his likeness for rides and merchandise.
“They just didn’t want there to be something trailing behind me that they’d find,” he said.
“That is true,” Depp added when Heard’s lawyer said “nothing on this earth” would get him to work with Disney again on another ‘Pirates’ film, even “$300 million and a million alpacas.”
I’m not sure he won’t do another Pirates film. He is definitely going to go back to make more terrible films. But that isn’t the point here. Neither is the point that he lost at least ten times what Heard was ordered to pay him as a result of her slander.
The point is: this trial was basically a Jussie Smollett moment for women. Just as there will never be another hate crime accusation where people don’t ask if it was fake, there will never be another abuse allegation where people don’t ask if the woman is lying. That’s a pretty big deal, because women are virtually always lying – at least by male definitions of the word “lying” – and the primary way they’ve been able to get away with these sex and abuse scams is that people feel bad for women.
Men have a natural drive to protect women, because women are needed for the procreation process. Without women, there are no children, and without children, you die. So women have, all throughout history, been given completely unwarranted special treatment. That is what it is – it’s just a biological reality of humans, so you can’t really criticize it in a meaningful way.
However, this all changed when women started to be given the same rights as men. It used to be the case in Western civilization (and still is the case in most nonwhite nations) that while women were the benefactors of a special status in society, receiving special physical protections and largely not held responsible for any of their actions, they were also not taken seriously, and if they made some outrageous claim, men would say “well, that’s just a woman talking.” However, when feminism came in, suddenly women were given equal status to men, and their statements were meant to be taken seriously, but they maintained all of the privileges of being women. Given that women were allowed to be involved in public discourse, you could no longer just say “well, that’s just a woman talking.”
There is no greater proof of this combination of female traditional privilege and modern women’s rights than the metoo slogan of “believe all women.” There had been a general sentiment that you should protect all women, even when their actions didn’t warrant being protected, but then when they were given equal status with men, that privilege transferred to the realm of men, and you had people with all of the rights and zero of the responsibilities of men. You have effectively created monsters who can do basically anything they want to anyone without any consequences, and even be rewarded based on how unconscionable their behaviors are.
The Depp victory obviously doesn’t totally overturn the entire feminist order – but it’s a pretty good start. If instead of saying “believe all women” we ask “well, what if she’s lying?”, we have a situation where a huge number of women’s behaviors are going to be off-limits. Before the Depp trial, we were basically in a place where a woman could do virtually anything – short of murder, and even then, women’s sentences are absurdly lower than men’s.
You will notice that feminism is always two-pronged:
- It is about increasing women’s power, and
- It is about decreasing women’s responsibility
You have both things wrapped up in a package in the so-called “gender pay gap” narrative. The demand is that women should get paid more for working less – more power, less responsibility.
The thing about this is, possibly with notable exceptions, women would not be able to function in the world of men if they were held to the same standards as men. So feminism has to argue for a removal of responsibilities alongside demands for an increase in power.
The whole metoo movement, introducing fake rape/abuse allegations as a weapon and claiming it was impossible for women to lie, was an extreme escalation of female privilege, giving them an absolute power to ruin men’s lives. And this is relatively new. It began with Brock Turner in 2015, when the college boy was sentenced for “abusing” a drunk girl he was on a date with after a make-out and finger-banging session was invaded by the Swedes. The girl, who later turned out to be an Asian-Jew, saw an opportunity to alleviate her embarrassment by going along with the narrative that the Swedes put forward that she was being “raped.” The court sided with the accuser, despite the fact that no evidence existed that the sexual act was “nonconsensual,” and she admitted she couldn’t even remember what happened.
From there you had this downward spiral, with Jewish feminist lawyers attacking basically all men in Hollywood with the metoo movement, which culminated in Harvey Weinstein being sentenced to prison on claims that he “raped” his girlfriend one time during a years-long sexual relationship she had with him. No evidence was presented to support the claim, and the court decided that a woman’s words are effectively the word of God – it is impossible she is lying because she is a woman.
So, maybe the Depp win rolls us back to Brock Turner – to 2015 standards. It’s not going to affect women’s privileges in the workplace, their ability to weasel out of traffic tickets and shoplifting arrests, or the sentencing standards for serious crimes. It will just slightly dull the blade of the fake rape and abuse charges that women have been successfully lodging against men for the past several years.
But that’s not a small thing – gaining any ground at all against the left is a big victory in a society that has been on an uninterrupted slide into the abyss for decades. This isn’t as big as the Trump 2016 victory, but it’s in the same category as that – it is a gaining of ground by sanity against the insanity of Jewish leftism. I think “this is women’s Jussie Smollett” is a good description of what transpired this week.
The Laser-Eyes of American Justice
Here’s a hot take: just as no one else could have set the standard for rape-hoaxing that Harvey Weinstein set, given that he was literally the single most repulsive person on earth, no one other than Johnny Depp could have changed the game like this, given that he is so dearly beloved by women. Men were disgusted by Weinstein in the same way that women are enthralled by Depp. Justice can’t be perfectly blind, but this demonstrates that justice in America has 20/20 vision and a pair of binoculars.
One case was criminal and one was civil, but they both went to a jury and you’re dealing with the exact same question: do you believe this lying slut? The fact that the slut accusing the handsome man was not believed and the slut accusing the odious Jew gargoyle was believed should be reason for inquiry into the functioning of the American justice system.
The same thing, as we know, is happening with race, where black people are treated completely differently than white people, and with politics, where abortion people are allowed to riot and attack government buildings but Trump supporters are thrown in a special political prison in solitary confinement on questionable trespassing charges. That’s really a bigger issue, but the difference between Johnny and Harvey’s outcomes is probably easier for people to think about.
You cannot have a functional society without a functional justice system. No one is going to honor a social contract that is being constantly breached. We have a lot of problems in our society, but the corruption of the justice system is in some ways the single most dire problem, as without a functioning justice system there is no possible way anything can ever be fixed.