Los Angeles brand Enfants Riches Déprimés is currently showcasing their Spring 2024 collection at Maxfield LA, and the event was attended by Marilyn Manson and his wife Lindsay on April 17th. On March 16th, Manson posted photos on his social media wearing the Enfants Riches Déprimés brand, which is French for "Depressed Rich Kids". Enfants Riches Déprimés is a Los Angeles and Paris based luxury fashion brand founded in 2012 by the conceptual artist Henri Alexander Levy, who has created a French punk streetwear line based on the movements of the late 1970s and Japanese Avant-garde movements of the 1980s. One of the core precepts of the brand is high price points, with T-shirts ranging on average from $500 to $1,000, and haute couture jackets priced as high as $95,000. ERD consistently utilizes the business model of artificial scarcity. In this regard, all styles are sold on an extremely exclusive basis, and thus in relatively small quantities. In a 2016 interview with Complex
"Rolling Stone" Publishes an Embarrassing Propaganda Hit Piece On Marilyn Manson, Calling it an "Investigation" (Part 2 of 6)
"The boy that you loved is the monster you fear."
- Marilyn Manson In part two I will go through the entire long-winded, desperate article by Rolling Stone titled "Marilyn Manson: The Monster Hiding in Plain Sight". I will try to comment on it very briefly, as all these things either are already or will be addressed in detail at www.marilynmansonuncanceled.com.
1. In 1997 Rolling Stone spoke of "Marilyn Manson's Beautiful Nightmare", in 1998 it was "A Journey to the Heart of Marilyn Manson: Love, Drugs and Redemption in the Hollywood Hills", in 2003 he was one of the "Monsters of Summer", and in 2015 they spoke of him as "The Return of the Vampire". They often reported on the "Monsters of Rock" as something positive. Monsters Of Rock was originally a festival held between 1980 and 1996 at Castle Donington. It later morphed into a gargantuan metal tour that traveled all over the world. In 1991 they hit Russia and an incredible 1.6 million rock fans are reported to have turned up. Now they are calling Manson "The Monster Hiding in Plain Sight". So is "Monster" a good thing or a bad thing? Rolling Stone called Manson one of the "Monsters of Summer" in 2003, so why is it a revelation now that he is a monster? Suddenly the word "monster" is used in a negative, more sinister way by Rolling Stone. Doesn't this say more about Rolling Stone than it does Marilyn Manson? And if they are using it in a negative way, in light of the allegations, then why don't they put the word "Monster" in quotes, since these are mere allegations. Right from the beginning, Rolling Stone is announcing to us that this article is nothing but a propaganda hit piece with a predetermined narrative.
2. The subheading says: "He was a provocative media darling for decades. Offstage, exes allege, he was an abuser who made their lives hell. A Rolling Stone investigation based on court documents and more than 55 new interviews." First, it seems like he is just as much a provocative media darling now as he ever was, maybe more. Second, this was not an "investigation", but according to those who support Manson and were contacted for this article, they were only interested in hearing about negative things about Manson, and ignored everything else. Third, the court documents are all easy to access by anyone, and have been read and commented on by Manson supporters, but this "investigation" payed no attention to anything that would dispute these cases. Fourth, the 55 new interviews may have been done, but those who supported Manson got no more than two lines in the article, even though the interviews lasted hours.
3. The article begins with a description of the well-known "Bad Girl's Room". After the publication of this article, these were the most repeated paragraphs in the media. It's nothing new. Manson has spoken about it for years. It was already widely reported on last spring. In a video I made, which tells the truth about the "Bad Girl's Room", I establish how Manson called it by this name as a joke, because it was an odd feature in his room from a previous occupant, and just a week or so prior on the first season of American Horror Story there was featured an episode that depicted a "Bad Girl Closet". I also show how Manson had talked about isolation chambers for years, since the late 1990's, and used it as a stage prop and in music videos. It was all a part of his art and the persona he was promoting for his new album. In the 2011 article (Rolling Stone falsely says it was a 2012 article), the interviewer never reports seeing the room, but he says that it could lock, even though Manson's former assistant Paula Baby and Manson himself, in an interview with the photographer Perou, denied that it could be locked, which Rolling Stone failed to mention. I tried contacting the reporter who said the room could be locked, but he has not responded to my email. In fact, this reporter has removed this interview from his website, as well as his contact information, but through the Wayback Machine I was able to recover them.
1. In 1997 Rolling Stone spoke of "Marilyn Manson's Beautiful Nightmare", in 1998 it was "A Journey to the Heart of Marilyn Manson: Love, Drugs and Redemption in the Hollywood Hills", in 2003 he was one of the "Monsters of Summer", and in 2015 they spoke of him as "The Return of the Vampire". They often reported on the "Monsters of Rock" as something positive. Monsters Of Rock was originally a festival held between 1980 and 1996 at Castle Donington. It later morphed into a gargantuan metal tour that traveled all over the world. In 1991 they hit Russia and an incredible 1.6 million rock fans are reported to have turned up. Now they are calling Manson "The Monster Hiding in Plain Sight". So is "Monster" a good thing or a bad thing? Rolling Stone called Manson one of the "Monsters of Summer" in 2003, so why is it a revelation now that he is a monster? Suddenly the word "monster" is used in a negative, more sinister way by Rolling Stone. Doesn't this say more about Rolling Stone than it does Marilyn Manson? And if they are using it in a negative way, in light of the allegations, then why don't they put the word "Monster" in quotes, since these are mere allegations. Right from the beginning, Rolling Stone is announcing to us that this article is nothing but a propaganda hit piece with a predetermined narrative.
2. The subheading says: "He was a provocative media darling for decades. Offstage, exes allege, he was an abuser who made their lives hell. A Rolling Stone investigation based on court documents and more than 55 new interviews." First, it seems like he is just as much a provocative media darling now as he ever was, maybe more. Second, this was not an "investigation", but according to those who support Manson and were contacted for this article, they were only interested in hearing about negative things about Manson, and ignored everything else. Third, the court documents are all easy to access by anyone, and have been read and commented on by Manson supporters, but this "investigation" payed no attention to anything that would dispute these cases. Fourth, the 55 new interviews may have been done, but those who supported Manson got no more than two lines in the article, even though the interviews lasted hours.
3. The article begins with a description of the well-known "Bad Girl's Room". After the publication of this article, these were the most repeated paragraphs in the media. It's nothing new. Manson has spoken about it for years. It was already widely reported on last spring. In a video I made, which tells the truth about the "Bad Girl's Room", I establish how Manson called it by this name as a joke, because it was an odd feature in his room from a previous occupant, and just a week or so prior on the first season of American Horror Story there was featured an episode that depicted a "Bad Girl Closet". I also show how Manson had talked about isolation chambers for years, since the late 1990's, and used it as a stage prop and in music videos. It was all a part of his art and the persona he was promoting for his new album. In the 2011 article (Rolling Stone falsely says it was a 2012 article), the interviewer never reports seeing the room, but he says that it could lock, even though Manson's former assistant Paula Baby and Manson himself, in an interview with the photographer Perou, denied that it could be locked, which Rolling Stone failed to mention. I tried contacting the reporter who said the room could be locked, but he has not responded to my email. In fact, this reporter has removed this interview from his website, as well as his contact information, but through the Wayback Machine I was able to recover them.
This is how to conduct an investigation, Rolling Stone. You actually ask questions. If Rolling Stone really tried to do an investigation, you would figure they would report on the full story, but clearly they have another agenda.
4. Marilyn Manson never dated Ashley Morgan Smithline, and if they did it was no more than a few days. She claims to have been locked in the Bad Girl's Room over 100 times, but she only was with Manson for no more than two weeks. More so, she claims to have dated Manson from 2011 to 2013, when in fact Manson not only dated other women during this time who lived with him, but his current wife, Lindsay Usich, became his exclusive girlfriend in 2012, and views Manson's association with her as utterly ridiculous. If she spent any time in the Bad Girl's Room, she probably did it of her own free will for a minute or so, and that's it. When you get the timeline wrong, you lose all credibility. You also lose credibility when you claim you have been raped by Manson somewhere between 30 and 300 times, like she did in an interview with her employer, People magazine.
5. The description of his apartment is well known, and many photos of it have been circulated for years. Manson has spoken about it for years, especially in interviews where he would showcase these things for the reporters to report on it. Rolling Stone doesn't care to put this all in context, as an investigation would do, but clearly uses it in a sensationalistic way to show their naive and ignorant readers that only a monster of the most vile kind could live there.
6. The temperature and darkness of his living space is a ridiculous attempt at exploitation, to depict him as a cold and dark human being. This may have worked when Charles Dickens described Ebenezer Scrooge (the accusers want to present themselves as sympathetic Bob Cratchet trying to sneak a piece of coal in the fireplace), but reasonable people know better. It has been established by people who know Manson that his living space is not as dark as the accusers and media say, and even if it was, who cares, and as far as a cold temperature, this should be a matter of preference - Manson may have been raised in a house where his parents did the same and this is what he is most comfortable in - after all he did live in humid South Florida and currently lives in sunny Southern California, both known for their hot weather. Many people keep their house temperature cold and many like it hot, so what's the point? Senator Bernie Sanders was recently reported to insist his living space be at 60 degrees, 5 degrees less than Manson. If Manson only did this when he was trying to torture women, then I can understand the point of highlighting this, but it is reported by everyone who knows Manson that have been asked about it, and most never made a big deal of it. If you don't like someone's lighting situation or how they keep the temperature in their house, then you shouldn't go there and complain.
7. By this time we already have two anonymous sources, referred to as "says one person" and "one ex-girlfriend". I reject all anonymous sources, and a proper investigation would also. To include them wreaks of desperation. At the very least they should be held suspect together with anything they say, even if it confirms something someone says who is named. Plus, an anonymous "ex-girlfriend" should be called an "alleged" ex-girlfriend, because there are women out there, including accusers, who claim to have been Manson's ex-girlfriend that we know were never a girlfriend to begin with.
8. Esme Bianco was not with Manson for two years, at least not two years straight, and what she describes took place over a year before they dated, when she willingly submitted herself to the things she describes because Manson hired her to star in an intense music video, the details of which she knew beforehand, and with her BDSM familiarity with devices of torture, Manson hired her to star in the video. To prove Manson abused her, in 2019 she submitted to the public a falsified photo that was not what she described. Also, she and Manson's assistant Ashley Walters took Manson's car out for a drive without his knowledge, got drunk, and totaled it in an accident, which is the most likely reason Manson broke it off with Esme and fired Ashley. An investigation would report this information, but as we said, Rolling Stone did not do an investigation.
9. Why did the six women gather on October 20, 2020? Who brought them together? Did they contact others to join them? Manson has been with more than six women. Greta Aurora, whom Manson spent a weekend with in January of 2011, was asked to join them when she received an email from Evan's close friend and fellow radical activist Illma Gore, but she ignored the invitation because, as she documents on video, her experience with Manson was a very positive one. Furthermore, why are the "investigators" who wrote this article the least bit suspicious of a group of women conspiring together to come out against Manson? There isn't an investigative bone in their body, it appears. A real investigation would seek to find any possible ulterior or sinister motives. What about the fact that all these women hung around within the same circles for years after dating Manson? For example, Ashley Walters and Esme Bianco are just about best friends, and they had previously hung out as friends with Evan Rachel Wood. The article quotes Manson's lawyer that says this was a "coordinated attack", but the report doesn't even attempt to explore the possibility of this being true. He also said the accusers "weaponized the otherwise mundane details of his personal life and their consensual relationships", which is true, but the report does not want to take this into consideration either. Of course, the article only quotes the lawyer to cover their asses to make it appear they are being fair to both sides.
10. Rolling Stone claims "the defining quality of Warner’s art has been his total rejection of conventional morality." First of all, why do they call him "Warner", when he goes by Manson. Only people who hate Manson call him that. They are not credible enough to be so derogatory. Secondly, Manson never claimed to totally reject conventional morality. To totally reject conventional morality would indeed make him a murderer and a rapist, which are frowned upon by conventional morality, but by saying that he totally rejected these things, which is not true, it makes it look like Rolling Stone is framing Manson. Furthermore, Manson never claimed to be against Christian values. He has long said that there are many good things about Christianity, and he implements those good things in his life, but he also disagrees with aspects of Christianity, which he rejects. The narrative presented however is that Manson has absolutely no morals, which is convenient for the case of the accusers.
11. Rolling Stone equates Manson's persona with his real life based on what some anonymous former "friends" of his say, and to Rolling Stone this is why he has a "rape room", based on the naive account of Phoebe Bridgers, who is currently being sued for $3.8million for defamation by producer Chris Nelson, who claims she falsely accused him of abusive behavior last year. Phoebe Bridgers, who I never knew before this feeble accusation, and only looks to advance her career, jumped on the bandwagon with the other accusers and talked about a "rape room", which was obviously a joke by Manson, and she knew this, but years later she interprets this in light of the accusations, and now sees something sinister in the joke. Does Rolling Stone question this? No, instead they use it as evidence that Manson had taken on a dark character he never had before. This also gives Rolling Stone the opportunity to focus on Manson as a rapist for the rest of the article, which was always their intention before the so-called "investigation" began. It appears they equate rape jokes with real rape.
12. It's interesting that Rolling Stone could not get in contact with a former Rolling Stone contributor, Neil Strauss.
13. What does Ashley Morgan Smithline know about "Brainwashing 101"? Brainwashing is a very technical procedure that requires professionals. Cults don't brainwash anyone, especially adults who have the power to choose, though it is a pretty common assumption they do. Manson never brainwashed anyone, nor should fans be viewed as cult-members in any situation. They throw these psychological terms around all the time posing as if they are experts, but they have no idea what they are talking about. They only say these things so people won't question why they just didn't leave Manson, as if they had no free will. The truth of the matter is, they always had the choice to leave, but they didn't, because they were never abused, and they were using Manson.
14. When Manson sang “Who says date rape isn’t kind?”, it is clear that Manson is criticizing that mentality, when the lyrics are read in context, but the investigative reporters at Rolling Stone saw the word "rape" and decided to use it to establish their narrative. This was the whole problem with certain members of the Christian fundamentalists of the 1990's, who looked for any hint in Manson's lyrics that he was evil. It is nothing short of a witch hunt. Moralism has no part in an investigation.
15. Going after Manson's recently deceased father for no good reason except for exploitative purposes that are placed out of their context is a pathetic display of reporting. In one paragraph they are trying to make Manson's father and Manson himself into a pedophile, as if it is a "like father, like son" sort of thing.
16. Tim Vaughn was the drummer for the bands Creepy T's and Kreamy ‘Lectric Santa in Miami. What his relationship with Manson was, I have no idea, so why should I trust anything he says? Also, this is a story that sounds like it had more context to it.
17. Notice the article keeps on referring to Manson as "Warner". This is being done on purpose, to show that by adopting the Manson name, he in fact became a "monster" like the prototype.
18. Rolling Stone associates the early references of Manson to "beating your mom" and "killing your parents" as something that reflected his real life, when in fact it was just a statement of rebelliousness meant to provoke, but Rolling Stone has a narrative and they will follow it any which way they can. Funny how a rock magazine doesn't get the idea of provocation through art.
19. The one-liner statements, especially of anonymous sources, do not reveal anything if not placed in context of how they are using it. Rolling Stone, however, is manipulating its readers, and in a cult-like fashion are forming for themselves the context of these one-liners within their own narrative.
20. Every time Rolling Stone quotes from Demystifying the Devil, which is a documentary tribute to Manson's early career, they do it to present something sinister, and when they quote former 25th Parallel editor Paul Gallotta out of context, they try to present Manson as a serial killer for being a shy, quiet person. Serial killers aren't even shy and quiet, maybe some, but it is not a defining characteristic, and certainly not all shy and quiet people are serial killers. But hey, if the comment fits a narrative, who cares about the context.
21. The one anonymous source, who says the name Marilyn Manson revealed who he truly was, doesn't know the first thing about rock bands and their names. Rolling Stone, a rock magazine, should know this, but doesn't add any comment to correct this assumption, since it fits their narrative.
22. Nancy says in an interview that what she did with Manson was a performance that she did willingly, and Manson has said that if he truly wanted to kill Nancy, then he would have done it, but he didn't.
23. Just a quick comment on Manson's autobiography The Long Hard Road Out of Hell. Manson has stated, and people mentioned by Manson in the book have stated, that a lot of what Manson talks about in there is exaggerated or even fabricated to make up a story, you can even say a fairytale. It is a tale of how he became the biggest rock star in the world, bigger even than Satan. The fact of the matter is, Manson's fame was just beginning when the book was written by Neil Strauss with his own collaboration, and it was through the book that he wanted to convince people he was a bigger rock star than he was in order to become in fact the biggest rock star, which is a brilliant marketing ploy, but not very good if you want to produce a true autobiography that wasn't nearly as exciting as portrayed. This is all common knowledge, if Rolling Stone had decided to do their research for their "investigation", but the fact that they are only trying to present a narrative they predetermined, and the autobiography has stories that fit that narrative, they prefer to sweep the facts under the rug.
24. Why is Harvey called "the local musician"? Why not "a local musician"? Plus, to describe one man's tastes means nothing, as he could have misinterpreted what he saw. In fact, he sort of confesses that, because at the time he saw Manson, he didn't know if this new band was putting on an act or being for real.
25. The blow job tape leaves a lot to the imagination. Was it a tape of Manson getting blow jobs, or was it a tape of women Manson claims gave him blow jobs? There is a big difference. Because this basic question is not asked in the report, we don't know, which means we have to throw out this story for its vagueness. Perhaps Rolling Stone kept this vague in order to draw a narrative for people to draw quick conclusions?
26. The article quotes another Manson rape joke from his autobiography to fit their narrative. They sound more immature than Manson and Twiggy making a prank call.
27. The article, like the accusers, will often portray Manson as a bully and a controlling person, but those closest to Manson say he is the exact opposite of controlling. He may be controlling over his art and business, which should be understood to be normal because it is your creation and you don't want others ruining it, but being controlling in your personal life is something else, especially in relationships. Since Rolling Stone couldn't get Neil Strauss to comment on their article, I will present a quote from him when he was asked in an interview if Manson was controlling during the process he was helping to write his autobiography:
"He was anything but a control freak. I don't think I would have done it if he was a control freak. It was a really great collaboration. I don't think there was any part of the book that he changed, censored, or tried to control. I would tell you if it was true. I think he's an artist with a vision, and since we shared the same vision, that wouldn't even be a word I'd think of using."
28. When Rolling Stone quotes Laura Werder, they fail to mention they got the quote from Demystifying the Devil, which is a tribute to Manson, but they portray it as if they actually talked to her and she is saying these things to frame Manson. If I were Laura, I would follow up on this with Rolling Stone for quoting her without a source and making it sound like something else.
29. They have Brian Tutunick (Olivia Newton Bundy) commenting on the band about something that happened a few years after he left the band. Oh wait, they are quoting from Demystifying the Devil again without citing the source, making it sound like he is commenting on Manson today in light of the allegations, as if he is on board with the narrative being created by Rolling Stone.
30. As we go on and on with this article, everything about Manson is viewed from within the lenses of abuse, which is a very narrow, agenda-driven view of everything, making the article very tiresome, with the stories being presented very common knowledge to fans, though out of proper context. Fans know these things are a part of the history of Marilyn Manson, but they are very far from being what Marilyn Manson is all about, which is the opposite of what this article tries to desperately portray.
31. They quote Laura Werder from Demystifying the Devil again without citing the quote. Are we supposed to believe she was one of the 55 interviews Rolling Stone allegedly did? Watching a documentary of interviews doesn't mean you actually interviewed them. Now I'm beginning to question the claim they spoke with 55 people.
32. They take Manson's jokes far too seriously in this article, showing that the authors have no sense of humor. Manson says things thinking his audience is intelligent enough to know the difference between a joke and something that is not a joke, or at least to know the basic difference between right and wrong. He does this based on the fact that the bands he loved as a kid said and did the same things, and because of this he was told not to listen to those bands he loved, and now that he has a band of his own, he is showing people that even if a rock star says something outrageous or even evil, it will not influence anyone listening to him to be the same way, because he is doing it for entertainment, for a certain kind of audience that gets it, while those that don't get it will protest. Just listen to all the things Manson said after Columbine. His clear message at the time, just like in the Spooky Kids days, was that entertainment was not killing your kids, but bigger factors played a role, such as parenting and education in school, maybe even DNA, and so forth. An investigation into the thought of Marilyn Manson would have revealed this, but it doesn't fit the narrative of this article, which is just trying to provoke the sentiments of the naive.
33. Manson has come to say not so nice things about Tony Wiggins, even though Manson has affirmed that everything he saw Wiggins do to groupies was done with their consent, but even this Manson did not approve of. Still, I find the story of Wiggins in this article to be irrelevant to anything except to show that Manson was around some bad people, maybe even make it sound he approved all these bad things these bad people did, even though the male fan did it with consent. It seems it is only meant to introduce the "Abuse" audio vignettes, which was all part of the boundaries Manson was trying to push to prove his point that entertainment is not responsible for the violence in society. As Manson would later say, it is in fact all about the debate of nature versus nurture, not entertainment.
34. At this point in the article I can see why all the media publications only focused on the "Bad Girl's Room" and skimmed over everything else. It is a very boring presentation of Manson, which normally would be more interesting in its proper context.
35. Esmé Bianco asks: “If you’re not a womanizer and a complete misogynist, are you really a rock star at all?” The answer is no and yes at the same time. A rock star by definition is larger than life, who can easily obtain what others will never obtain, and part of the entertainment of following a rock star is seeing them have beautiful women adore them, who are willing to do anything for them, and rock stars take advantage of this adoration, which tantalizes the male fantasy. Many will interpret this by the standards of their own personal morals, which is fine, but the fantasy does not necessarily translate into misogyny. In fact, the problem of the rock star has more often been that they love women too much more than actually hating them. Not understanding this is what blows up the narrative of the accusers as well as the media, even though Rolling Stone is supposed to understand these things.
4. Marilyn Manson never dated Ashley Morgan Smithline, and if they did it was no more than a few days. She claims to have been locked in the Bad Girl's Room over 100 times, but she only was with Manson for no more than two weeks. More so, she claims to have dated Manson from 2011 to 2013, when in fact Manson not only dated other women during this time who lived with him, but his current wife, Lindsay Usich, became his exclusive girlfriend in 2012, and views Manson's association with her as utterly ridiculous. If she spent any time in the Bad Girl's Room, she probably did it of her own free will for a minute or so, and that's it. When you get the timeline wrong, you lose all credibility. You also lose credibility when you claim you have been raped by Manson somewhere between 30 and 300 times, like she did in an interview with her employer, People magazine.
5. The description of his apartment is well known, and many photos of it have been circulated for years. Manson has spoken about it for years, especially in interviews where he would showcase these things for the reporters to report on it. Rolling Stone doesn't care to put this all in context, as an investigation would do, but clearly uses it in a sensationalistic way to show their naive and ignorant readers that only a monster of the most vile kind could live there.
6. The temperature and darkness of his living space is a ridiculous attempt at exploitation, to depict him as a cold and dark human being. This may have worked when Charles Dickens described Ebenezer Scrooge (the accusers want to present themselves as sympathetic Bob Cratchet trying to sneak a piece of coal in the fireplace), but reasonable people know better. It has been established by people who know Manson that his living space is not as dark as the accusers and media say, and even if it was, who cares, and as far as a cold temperature, this should be a matter of preference - Manson may have been raised in a house where his parents did the same and this is what he is most comfortable in - after all he did live in humid South Florida and currently lives in sunny Southern California, both known for their hot weather. Many people keep their house temperature cold and many like it hot, so what's the point? Senator Bernie Sanders was recently reported to insist his living space be at 60 degrees, 5 degrees less than Manson. If Manson only did this when he was trying to torture women, then I can understand the point of highlighting this, but it is reported by everyone who knows Manson that have been asked about it, and most never made a big deal of it. If you don't like someone's lighting situation or how they keep the temperature in their house, then you shouldn't go there and complain.
7. By this time we already have two anonymous sources, referred to as "says one person" and "one ex-girlfriend". I reject all anonymous sources, and a proper investigation would also. To include them wreaks of desperation. At the very least they should be held suspect together with anything they say, even if it confirms something someone says who is named. Plus, an anonymous "ex-girlfriend" should be called an "alleged" ex-girlfriend, because there are women out there, including accusers, who claim to have been Manson's ex-girlfriend that we know were never a girlfriend to begin with.
8. Esme Bianco was not with Manson for two years, at least not two years straight, and what she describes took place over a year before they dated, when she willingly submitted herself to the things she describes because Manson hired her to star in an intense music video, the details of which she knew beforehand, and with her BDSM familiarity with devices of torture, Manson hired her to star in the video. To prove Manson abused her, in 2019 she submitted to the public a falsified photo that was not what she described. Also, she and Manson's assistant Ashley Walters took Manson's car out for a drive without his knowledge, got drunk, and totaled it in an accident, which is the most likely reason Manson broke it off with Esme and fired Ashley. An investigation would report this information, but as we said, Rolling Stone did not do an investigation.
9. Why did the six women gather on October 20, 2020? Who brought them together? Did they contact others to join them? Manson has been with more than six women. Greta Aurora, whom Manson spent a weekend with in January of 2011, was asked to join them when she received an email from Evan's close friend and fellow radical activist Illma Gore, but she ignored the invitation because, as she documents on video, her experience with Manson was a very positive one. Furthermore, why are the "investigators" who wrote this article the least bit suspicious of a group of women conspiring together to come out against Manson? There isn't an investigative bone in their body, it appears. A real investigation would seek to find any possible ulterior or sinister motives. What about the fact that all these women hung around within the same circles for years after dating Manson? For example, Ashley Walters and Esme Bianco are just about best friends, and they had previously hung out as friends with Evan Rachel Wood. The article quotes Manson's lawyer that says this was a "coordinated attack", but the report doesn't even attempt to explore the possibility of this being true. He also said the accusers "weaponized the otherwise mundane details of his personal life and their consensual relationships", which is true, but the report does not want to take this into consideration either. Of course, the article only quotes the lawyer to cover their asses to make it appear they are being fair to both sides.
10. Rolling Stone claims "the defining quality of Warner’s art has been his total rejection of conventional morality." First of all, why do they call him "Warner", when he goes by Manson. Only people who hate Manson call him that. They are not credible enough to be so derogatory. Secondly, Manson never claimed to totally reject conventional morality. To totally reject conventional morality would indeed make him a murderer and a rapist, which are frowned upon by conventional morality, but by saying that he totally rejected these things, which is not true, it makes it look like Rolling Stone is framing Manson. Furthermore, Manson never claimed to be against Christian values. He has long said that there are many good things about Christianity, and he implements those good things in his life, but he also disagrees with aspects of Christianity, which he rejects. The narrative presented however is that Manson has absolutely no morals, which is convenient for the case of the accusers.
11. Rolling Stone equates Manson's persona with his real life based on what some anonymous former "friends" of his say, and to Rolling Stone this is why he has a "rape room", based on the naive account of Phoebe Bridgers, who is currently being sued for $3.8million for defamation by producer Chris Nelson, who claims she falsely accused him of abusive behavior last year. Phoebe Bridgers, who I never knew before this feeble accusation, and only looks to advance her career, jumped on the bandwagon with the other accusers and talked about a "rape room", which was obviously a joke by Manson, and she knew this, but years later she interprets this in light of the accusations, and now sees something sinister in the joke. Does Rolling Stone question this? No, instead they use it as evidence that Manson had taken on a dark character he never had before. This also gives Rolling Stone the opportunity to focus on Manson as a rapist for the rest of the article, which was always their intention before the so-called "investigation" began. It appears they equate rape jokes with real rape.
12. It's interesting that Rolling Stone could not get in contact with a former Rolling Stone contributor, Neil Strauss.
13. What does Ashley Morgan Smithline know about "Brainwashing 101"? Brainwashing is a very technical procedure that requires professionals. Cults don't brainwash anyone, especially adults who have the power to choose, though it is a pretty common assumption they do. Manson never brainwashed anyone, nor should fans be viewed as cult-members in any situation. They throw these psychological terms around all the time posing as if they are experts, but they have no idea what they are talking about. They only say these things so people won't question why they just didn't leave Manson, as if they had no free will. The truth of the matter is, they always had the choice to leave, but they didn't, because they were never abused, and they were using Manson.
14. When Manson sang “Who says date rape isn’t kind?”, it is clear that Manson is criticizing that mentality, when the lyrics are read in context, but the investigative reporters at Rolling Stone saw the word "rape" and decided to use it to establish their narrative. This was the whole problem with certain members of the Christian fundamentalists of the 1990's, who looked for any hint in Manson's lyrics that he was evil. It is nothing short of a witch hunt. Moralism has no part in an investigation.
15. Going after Manson's recently deceased father for no good reason except for exploitative purposes that are placed out of their context is a pathetic display of reporting. In one paragraph they are trying to make Manson's father and Manson himself into a pedophile, as if it is a "like father, like son" sort of thing.
16. Tim Vaughn was the drummer for the bands Creepy T's and Kreamy ‘Lectric Santa in Miami. What his relationship with Manson was, I have no idea, so why should I trust anything he says? Also, this is a story that sounds like it had more context to it.
17. Notice the article keeps on referring to Manson as "Warner". This is being done on purpose, to show that by adopting the Manson name, he in fact became a "monster" like the prototype.
18. Rolling Stone associates the early references of Manson to "beating your mom" and "killing your parents" as something that reflected his real life, when in fact it was just a statement of rebelliousness meant to provoke, but Rolling Stone has a narrative and they will follow it any which way they can. Funny how a rock magazine doesn't get the idea of provocation through art.
19. The one-liner statements, especially of anonymous sources, do not reveal anything if not placed in context of how they are using it. Rolling Stone, however, is manipulating its readers, and in a cult-like fashion are forming for themselves the context of these one-liners within their own narrative.
20. Every time Rolling Stone quotes from Demystifying the Devil, which is a documentary tribute to Manson's early career, they do it to present something sinister, and when they quote former 25th Parallel editor Paul Gallotta out of context, they try to present Manson as a serial killer for being a shy, quiet person. Serial killers aren't even shy and quiet, maybe some, but it is not a defining characteristic, and certainly not all shy and quiet people are serial killers. But hey, if the comment fits a narrative, who cares about the context.
21. The one anonymous source, who says the name Marilyn Manson revealed who he truly was, doesn't know the first thing about rock bands and their names. Rolling Stone, a rock magazine, should know this, but doesn't add any comment to correct this assumption, since it fits their narrative.
22. Nancy says in an interview that what she did with Manson was a performance that she did willingly, and Manson has said that if he truly wanted to kill Nancy, then he would have done it, but he didn't.
23. Just a quick comment on Manson's autobiography The Long Hard Road Out of Hell. Manson has stated, and people mentioned by Manson in the book have stated, that a lot of what Manson talks about in there is exaggerated or even fabricated to make up a story, you can even say a fairytale. It is a tale of how he became the biggest rock star in the world, bigger even than Satan. The fact of the matter is, Manson's fame was just beginning when the book was written by Neil Strauss with his own collaboration, and it was through the book that he wanted to convince people he was a bigger rock star than he was in order to become in fact the biggest rock star, which is a brilliant marketing ploy, but not very good if you want to produce a true autobiography that wasn't nearly as exciting as portrayed. This is all common knowledge, if Rolling Stone had decided to do their research for their "investigation", but the fact that they are only trying to present a narrative they predetermined, and the autobiography has stories that fit that narrative, they prefer to sweep the facts under the rug.
24. Why is Harvey called "the local musician"? Why not "a local musician"? Plus, to describe one man's tastes means nothing, as he could have misinterpreted what he saw. In fact, he sort of confesses that, because at the time he saw Manson, he didn't know if this new band was putting on an act or being for real.
25. The blow job tape leaves a lot to the imagination. Was it a tape of Manson getting blow jobs, or was it a tape of women Manson claims gave him blow jobs? There is a big difference. Because this basic question is not asked in the report, we don't know, which means we have to throw out this story for its vagueness. Perhaps Rolling Stone kept this vague in order to draw a narrative for people to draw quick conclusions?
26. The article quotes another Manson rape joke from his autobiography to fit their narrative. They sound more immature than Manson and Twiggy making a prank call.
27. The article, like the accusers, will often portray Manson as a bully and a controlling person, but those closest to Manson say he is the exact opposite of controlling. He may be controlling over his art and business, which should be understood to be normal because it is your creation and you don't want others ruining it, but being controlling in your personal life is something else, especially in relationships. Since Rolling Stone couldn't get Neil Strauss to comment on their article, I will present a quote from him when he was asked in an interview if Manson was controlling during the process he was helping to write his autobiography:
"He was anything but a control freak. I don't think I would have done it if he was a control freak. It was a really great collaboration. I don't think there was any part of the book that he changed, censored, or tried to control. I would tell you if it was true. I think he's an artist with a vision, and since we shared the same vision, that wouldn't even be a word I'd think of using."
28. When Rolling Stone quotes Laura Werder, they fail to mention they got the quote from Demystifying the Devil, which is a tribute to Manson, but they portray it as if they actually talked to her and she is saying these things to frame Manson. If I were Laura, I would follow up on this with Rolling Stone for quoting her without a source and making it sound like something else.
29. They have Brian Tutunick (Olivia Newton Bundy) commenting on the band about something that happened a few years after he left the band. Oh wait, they are quoting from Demystifying the Devil again without citing the source, making it sound like he is commenting on Manson today in light of the allegations, as if he is on board with the narrative being created by Rolling Stone.
30. As we go on and on with this article, everything about Manson is viewed from within the lenses of abuse, which is a very narrow, agenda-driven view of everything, making the article very tiresome, with the stories being presented very common knowledge to fans, though out of proper context. Fans know these things are a part of the history of Marilyn Manson, but they are very far from being what Marilyn Manson is all about, which is the opposite of what this article tries to desperately portray.
31. They quote Laura Werder from Demystifying the Devil again without citing the quote. Are we supposed to believe she was one of the 55 interviews Rolling Stone allegedly did? Watching a documentary of interviews doesn't mean you actually interviewed them. Now I'm beginning to question the claim they spoke with 55 people.
32. They take Manson's jokes far too seriously in this article, showing that the authors have no sense of humor. Manson says things thinking his audience is intelligent enough to know the difference between a joke and something that is not a joke, or at least to know the basic difference between right and wrong. He does this based on the fact that the bands he loved as a kid said and did the same things, and because of this he was told not to listen to those bands he loved, and now that he has a band of his own, he is showing people that even if a rock star says something outrageous or even evil, it will not influence anyone listening to him to be the same way, because he is doing it for entertainment, for a certain kind of audience that gets it, while those that don't get it will protest. Just listen to all the things Manson said after Columbine. His clear message at the time, just like in the Spooky Kids days, was that entertainment was not killing your kids, but bigger factors played a role, such as parenting and education in school, maybe even DNA, and so forth. An investigation into the thought of Marilyn Manson would have revealed this, but it doesn't fit the narrative of this article, which is just trying to provoke the sentiments of the naive.
33. Manson has come to say not so nice things about Tony Wiggins, even though Manson has affirmed that everything he saw Wiggins do to groupies was done with their consent, but even this Manson did not approve of. Still, I find the story of Wiggins in this article to be irrelevant to anything except to show that Manson was around some bad people, maybe even make it sound he approved all these bad things these bad people did, even though the male fan did it with consent. It seems it is only meant to introduce the "Abuse" audio vignettes, which was all part of the boundaries Manson was trying to push to prove his point that entertainment is not responsible for the violence in society. As Manson would later say, it is in fact all about the debate of nature versus nurture, not entertainment.
34. At this point in the article I can see why all the media publications only focused on the "Bad Girl's Room" and skimmed over everything else. It is a very boring presentation of Manson, which normally would be more interesting in its proper context.
35. Esmé Bianco asks: “If you’re not a womanizer and a complete misogynist, are you really a rock star at all?” The answer is no and yes at the same time. A rock star by definition is larger than life, who can easily obtain what others will never obtain, and part of the entertainment of following a rock star is seeing them have beautiful women adore them, who are willing to do anything for them, and rock stars take advantage of this adoration, which tantalizes the male fantasy. Many will interpret this by the standards of their own personal morals, which is fine, but the fantasy does not necessarily translate into misogyny. In fact, the problem of the rock star has more often been that they love women too much more than actually hating them. Not understanding this is what blows up the narrative of the accusers as well as the media, even though Rolling Stone is supposed to understand these things.
This article is too long with too many errors that need some sort of clarification, so I will continue in...