Skip to main content

Marilyn Manson Shares Valentine's Day Photos (February 14, 2024) - Some Possible Meanings Behind Recent Manson Imagery

The day prior to Valentine's Day, Lindsay posted some of her photos in anticipation, but on February 14th itself Manson posted photos of himself taken by Lindsay. The first thing he did was change his profile photo on all his social media to the image at the top of this page, then he posted the following photo:     The last time Manson changed his profile photo was on May 15, 2023 with the caption: "I’ve got something for you to hear," and I pointed out some of the relevant imagery of that photo. May 15th is the wedding anniversary of Manson and Lindsay. Now we have another profile change on February 14th, Valentine's Day, which besides all the historical Manson symbolism behind the day, can also be seen as another occasion for Manson and Lindsay to celebrate their love. And of course, both photos were taken by Lindsay. The latest profile picture has no accompanying caption, so let's take a closer look at it and see what significance there may be to it. To break

Marilyn Manson in the News (November 1-5, 2021) - Kanye West, Multiple Accusers, Media Frenzy, Including Some Important Statements

Since my last post, which covered Marilyn Manson's attendance at Ye's (Kanye West) Sunday Halloween Service on October 31st, there has been a lot of Manson news, so I decided to put everything else I wanted to do aside and cover some of this news, from November 1st till the 5th.

1. I want to begin with a clarification. I noticed on Halloween people were posting on social media how Evan Rachel Wood covered the song "Cry Little Sister", as if it was her trying to copy Marilyn Manson or do something else to Manson, who covered the song in 2018. Whether she had these intentions or not, I don't know, but one thing for sure is that she actually has a history covering that song, at least since 2019. Here is a link to her performance of it in 2019 and here is a link in 2020. She even put the original on a playlist that was uploaded in 2015. Perhaps it is a song that she and Manson both listened to and grew to appreciate together back when they were dating in his vampire era, but I just want to point out that 2021 was not the first time she covered it, though it is difficult to not assume that it has some sort of connection with Manson.

2. The confusion about Marilyn Manson appearing at a prayer service has continued till today. This has been a bit surprising to me. Yes, it was a shock to see Manson do some things at the Sunday Service, but to see that some fans are disappointed or feel betrayed by this action I think is a bit extreme. I addressed this in my last post, so I won't repeat anything here, but when people messaged me about it, I reminded them that artists with not only very similar reputations as Manson, but even the biggest influences of Manson, did exactly what Manson did and even went much further. Most people already know of Alice Cooper's conversion to Christianity decades ago, though they seem to have forgotten it, but what fewer people know about is David Bowie's conversion/journey to faith especially in the early 1990's. For this reason I drew up a meme hoping it would get around, and here is the accompanying video. Neither of these actions ruined their careers, nor did they come to reject their past (maybe for a short time, but not too long), nor were their careers defined by these moments, so we shouldn't make too much of a big deal about Manson's appearance at Ye's Sunday Service.

3. On November 2nd People's Tomás Mier, who infamously covered the original Ashley Morgan Smithline interview for People back in May, decided to contact Ashley again for her take on Manson's appearances with Ye, and he took it a step further and contacted a spokesperson for Marilyn Manson, because that's what supposed "journalists" do these days when they know they have another agenda and want to cover their asses to say "Hey, look, we were fair after all!"

This is what Ashley had to say on her behalf and on behalf of all the victims:

"It's heartbreaking. It makes me sick. How is this the world we live in? It makes everyone really f—ing sick. This is just like being retraumatized. And it's just showing the point that the world doesn't really care if you rape and if you beat and hurt all these [women], you can do whatever you want, basically, if you have money and you're a guy and you're famous. This man [Ye] has to know that he is enabling a rapist. He's enabling an abuser and not just [of] one girl."

In reference to the fact that Manson has been recently spotted more and more in public, she further commented:

"How's he having lunch in West Hollywood when we're sitting here, terrified for our lives, that he is going to kill us? We just told all of our truths, we just put ourselves way out there and he's just f—ing around having drinks, having lunch in West Hollywood. So to see Kanye West take his name... and prop up [an] abuser, rapist, anyone to sell albums?... I'm sick to death. And this is the way that our world works and he's thriving."

The spokesperson for Marilyn Manson said that he was an "integral part" of the Sunday Service, and when asked whether or not he converted to Christianity, the spokesperson replied: "That's nobody's business." They added: "Throughout his career, Marilyn Manson has collaborated with innovative and legendary artists across all musical genres, and Ye is no exception."

Two days later People published an interview with another radical Me Too activist, Alyssa Milano, which bore the title: "Alyssa Milano Says Childbirth Reminded Her of Being Sexually Assaulted: 'I Wasn't in Control'".

To publish two articles on retraumatization of sexual abuse victims within two days makes it seem like People has a Me Too propaganda agenda. Of course, retraumatization is a fact for real victims of abuse, but People presents two cases that are almost equally comical and pathetic at the same time.

In 2017 Evan Rachel Wood also gave a comical and at the same time pathetic reason for feeling "retraumatized", when she said:

"Half of America is traumatized and in an abusive relationship with this administration and people (especially women) are so triggered because it’s deja vu."

She was here talking about President Donald Trump and his administration, and how he being elected President made her feel "retraumatized" from her rapes and sexual abuse in the past. She compares Trump supporters to her when she was in a relationship with Marilyn Manson, and she compares Donald Trump to when Marilyn Manson was abusing her, and she draws these comparisons in order to give a psychological profile of Trump supporters based on her own psychological profile at that time in order to lead Trump supporters away from their "abuser", Trump, and mold them towards her way of thinking. Very manipulative woman, that Evan!

Regarding Ashley's comments, they should be read in context. The first paragraph are her comments about Manson going to church, and the second paragraph are her comments about Manson going out to get something to eat. Ashley is so filled with hate and rage and bitterness, that she believes Manson should not be allowed to pray or eat outside of his house. She is not happy with the fact that because of her and her cohorts his name is smeared all across the media with false accusations and allegations, nor that his career has been canceled, at least for the moment, but she wants Manson to basically never be allowed to show his face in public again. If you read Ashley's social media, she posts a lot about self-help, mental health and inspiration to live a good and happy life, but what she reveals in these comments is someone who is bitter, unforgiving, angry, controlling, frustrated, merciless, rage-filled. It's almost as if she is living a lie, one way or another.

Furthermore, the fact that Ashley unreasonably fears for her life (if we are to believe she really does fear for her life), every time Manson goes out to eat, then I would highly recommend to her some therapy, because this is an extreme form of paranoia, which I might add is a common trait of all the main accusers, especially Evan Rachel Wood. Radical activism and paranoia seem to go hand in hand, as we saw how the radical feminists overreacted when Donald Trump was elected.

The comments of Manson's spokesperson were short and to the point. They do not deny Manson becoming a Christian, nor do they affirm it, leaving it to Manson to reveal in his own good time if he so wishes. Furthermore, they present Manson's collaboration as a "career" move, which is a strong word for someone that is being reported as canceled.

4. On November 4th, Ye gave his first interview since the release of Donda on the podcast Drink Champs. It was a nearly 2.5 hour interview that really puts you into the current headspace of Ye, which includes some comments on his collaboration with Marilyn Manson and his critcisms of cancel culture. The segment on Manson specifically can be seen on my new YouTube channel, which you can subscribe to here. Below is a transcript of his comments:

"When I'm sitting next to Marilyn Manson and Da Baby, right after both of them got canceled, for five songs, you know, it's like, they can't cancel us all. They'll hit you with an accusation or somebody that you was with, you know, ten years ago, and then also it's like, there's women who've been through really serious things, pulled in alleys against their will; that's different from a hug, but it's classified as the same thing. You know, it's power and politics, you know, it's power hungry maniacs and just ... control - this is Nineteen Eighty-Four mind control that we in."

5. Loudwire published something very interesting today, November 5th. In an article titled "Kanye West Reveals Why He Joined Forces With Marilyn Manson", they simply gave a quick synopsis and posted the video of Ye's interview with Drink Champs. But then they did something which reveals a clear Me Too propaganda agenda. If you scroll further down, you will see they post a long "Timeline of Abuse Allegations Against Marilyn Manson" in order that whatever you read associated with Marilyn Manson, no matter how small, you must remember the entire context and never forget that multiple people have accused him of abuse. This propaganda is something other media sources have implemented as well. Loudwire feels like it must always remind their readers that "no matter what is said of Manson, we (Loudwire) are on the side of the accusers". Very pathetic!

6. Lastly, on November 5th came another pathetic article from the Los Angeles Times titled "Marilyn Manson's Accusers Detail His Alleged Abuse. 'He's So Much Worse Than His Persona'". Here the Los Angeles Times has decided to review and update us on the Esme Bianco case in a tabloid style. Most of what is in here has already been talked about before, with some new additions, and I will analyze it all in time, but the most pathetic part about this piece is that it is garbage journalism at its finest, and by that I mean it never questions anything the accusers say, nor does it refer to the evidence that has come out against them, but as the cover photo shows, the LA Times has decided to depict Esme Bianco as an innocent little sexless victim (who looks like she came out of the more modest 1940's) of lust-filled Monster Manson. Then they go on to act as if they have done an investigation into this case, by saying:

"Court records and emails reviewed by The Times along with nearly two dozen accounts of former partners and colleagues portray Manson as someone who used his reputation as a transgressive artist to mistreat and isolate women drawn to his boundary-pushing music."

This paragraph is very cleverly edited to cover their asses while at the same time trying to show they have done some investigating, when all it really says is they have read a lot of the documents anyone interested in the case has already read as well, but it also shows they have not looked into any of the evidence against Esme's testimony or any other accuser, all of which we will list and elaborate on in future posts.

Then the LA Times goes on to give us a retrospective of Manson's career, highlighting the warning signs we should have all seen, because we were obviously too taken by his wit, charm and rhythms at the time to really think straight. As you can guess, every single one of these "warning signs" are presented in a very twisted, sinister way to support their Me Too hyper-propaganda. Whenever they say something positive about Manson, they quickly glance over it without comment, but if they find an opportunity to twist something their way, they will elaborate on it to support their thesis. Every once in a while they will throw in a statement from the past made either by Manson's lawyer or a spokesperson, but this again is just to cover their asses to show they are being balanced reporters, when they are in fact not. Being a balanced reporter of a story requires a level of skepticism, and there is no skepticism to be found in this article aimed at the accusers, but there certainly is skepticism about the character of Manson.

One of the most interesting things about this article is the line: "Wood declined to comment for this story." It leaves me curious why she decided to stay quiet this time, seeing she is not one to stay quiet, especially in times like this.

Probably their shining example of good reporting comes when they talk about the notorious Groupie film. Compared to the rest of the article, this actually shows they did some investigating into at least one part of the case. Most everything else is just rehashed from other sources and very lazy.

It is no surprise that Esme's best friend and fellow Manson accuser Ashley Walters also spoke here to the LA Times, elaborating on her claim that Manson is an anti-Semitic misogynist.  Of course, Ashley Walters knows better and if anything she is just looking back and interpreting everything through her current radical liberal eyes, but she clearly has a grudge against Manson who fired her for being a terrible assistant and wants to bring him down by saying anything that will get public favor, especially from the far left activist crowd, which she is a part of and trying to please. We will analyze all her accusations in detail another time, but she elaborates on them here, and even sent emails to the LA Times from May 13 and May 15, 2011 of alleged photos by Manson of knife wounds on Bianco's torso with the subject line: "See what happens?" Of course, we don't get to see these emails, so we can't make a judgment call, but the LA Times will be glad to draw conclusions for us, because we clearly are not as smart as them.

The LA Times goes on to recount one allegation after another, all rehashed material, but when they come to Dan Cleary, whose testimony has clear holes and contradictions, they never question, but just recount what he says. Horrible journalism! Plus, he will take any opportunity to promote himself and his horrible podcast, so it's no surprise he spoke.

There is also talk of "multiple sources" and "others said"  and "some former associates" and "several people" throughout this article, who are never named, yet we are supposed to trust what they say? The LA Times has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Anonymous sources should always be doubted. My favorite is when they quote "someone who toured with Manson in the 2000s". No one cares what this person says, so why publish it? This could be someone disgruntled and Manson may have had a perfectly legitimate reason for making them feel that way, but we are supposed to take every accusation seriously no matter what, and give absolutely no voice to people who can refute all these allegations and claims.

The statement by Paula Baby was very good, but I think a lot more could have been done with her. Out of everyone they interviewed and talked about, Paula knows Manson the most and the longest, and this should have been highlighted. It seemed that coverage of her was more rushed than others, even highlighting an obscure allegation not even mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Later on the LA Times published another article giving an overview of Ye's interview, which basically presents him as a lunatic who made no sense, even dangerous to the Me Too Movement. This should be no surprise, and it should be viewed as a positive thing these radical activists see him as dangerous.


Over the past few weeks, there have been positive developments with Manson, but the media is still being horrible. I'm still waiting for that one positive article. At the most, you may get one that is somewhat middle of the road, but nothing positive yet, nothing that does real investigative journalism, that actually examines the evidence and the testimonies and the documents with a rational working mind. If journalists for the Los Angeles Times, People or Loudwire only took the time to not only read through and accept what is said in the accusers testimonies, but to actually analyze them and see how they are filled with falsehoods and contradictions and agendas, then maybe we will get a journalistic piece on Manson that could be at least respected, but so far no one who has covered the case deserves any respect. If anyone does deserve respect, it is Ye, for putting everything on the line to give Manson a chance and for treating him like a human being. This is really all we can ask for.