Skip to main content

Unraveling the Meaning of Marilyn Manson's New Teaser Video

Marilyn Manson's new teaser video, by which he announced his new record label Nuclear Blast and introduced us to new music after nearly four years, is also rich with imagery and symbolism in its brief one minute and ten second duration. It's not clear if this teaser is complete in itself or just a portion of something else to come, nonetheless I observed a possible explanation as to what we may be looking at, and I wanted to share my thoughts and open it up to criticism so we can arrive at the truth. From what we have gathered so far, we know that Manson is bringing back the imagery of the Tryptich ( Antichrist Superstar , Mechanical Animals , Holy Wood ), with a special emphasis on the revolutionary theme of Holy Wood , since a parallel is being drawn to what inspired its creation (Manson being blamed for inspiring the Columbine shooters, the cancelation of his tour that ensued and his ultimate comeback) with Manson's current troubles of accusations against him and his s

"Rolling Stone" Publishes an Embarrassing Propaganda Hit Piece On Marilyn Manson, Calling it an "Investigation" (Part 4 of 6)

...continued from part three.

49. Rolling Stone at this point continues its narrative, which was initiated by their title for this article calling Manson a "monster" (in a negative sense), that the persona of Marilyn Manson had taken over and consumed Brian Warner, to the extent that his art and his life were one and the same. And it's not the "Marilyn" part that Rolling Stone wants you to think of, but the "Manson" part. Of course, this is gaslighting at its finest on the part of Rolling Stone, and gaslighting is what the far left media specializes in, so this should be no surprise that they are trying to create an alternate reality for the sake of earning their "one dollar a word" (this is reportedly what a journalist at Rolling Stone makes, hence the obscene length of this article).

50. They quote Manson's The Guardian interview from May of 2003, which Rolling Stone does not cite because they don't want you to put the quote in its proper context, but we will do it here. The quote is:

“Whatever I do, whatever I say, I am Marilyn Manson now, I can’t turn it off.”

What a perfect and convenient quote for the Rolling Stone narrative. But not really. The quote comes after the interviewer asks Manson if he minds being called Brian, and then Manson responds with the quote above. If he had not been asked, he would not have said it. This isn't a statement, or an announcement, in other words, as Rolling Stone would have you think. In fact, he had been saying this for many years before this interview. All this really means is that everybody called him Marilyn Manson. In another interview he responded in a similar fashion when asked if people called him Marilyn, to which he replied that all his friends called him Manson. His whole identification became associated with the name by the fans and the people he worked with, and, of course, it was something he wanted. In fact, his autobiography was all about him becoming Marilyn Manson, but not Marilyn Manson "the abuser" as Rolling Stone wants us to believe, but Marilyn Manson "the rock star". This is what Antichrist Superstar was all about. The worm boy evolved and got his wings, the boy that you loved became the man that you fear. Rolling Stone wants to make it sound like in 2003 Manson's persona ate up whatever humanity was left in him, but that is not the case. Furthermore, Manson would also say about a decade after this interview that his parents still called him Brian, as well as family, and he had no problem with it.

Here is a case in point from my own experience. I went to Graduate school 20 years ago and was friends with Marilyn Manson's next door neighbor when he lived in Ohio, in fact, Manson was his babysitter on many occasions for a number of years. When I was talking to him about what he was like growing up, I was constantly calling him "Manson", but he kept on calling him "Brian", because he was raised to call him Brian, he probably called him Brian a thousand times, and he would sort of smile every time I called him Manson because he saw me as a fan of his babysitter and neighbor more than a musical artist. I'm sure if he met Manson today he would still call him Brian, and I'm sure Manson would be fine with it and understand. To me, Calling him Brian was weird, so I called him Manson. And by the way, for the record, growing up, he loved Manson, he was like a cool older brother to him that he looked up to, he describes him as the nicest guy in the world who always made time to play outside with him even though he was older, and he was quiet and chill. He always would say that everything Manson does today is an act, it is a performance, and he still recognizes the Brian he grew up with despite the persona, and would always assure me the rumors about him at the time weren't true. I should also mention that today he is a Greek Orthodox priest.

51. They try to paint Manson as the one who first referenced Evan Rachel Wood as his Lolita, implying he was basically a pedophile on the hunt, when in fact it was Evan who referenced it first, since she was obsessed with Lolita as a younger teenager, and because of her reference to it, which he thought was funny, he wrote the song "Heart-Shaped Glasses".

To move forward in their report, the reporters need to make Manson sound as sleazy as possible, whether it's true or not.

52. "Within a year [of dating], Warner and Wood had broken up for the first time...." This is not true. Manson and Evan started dating in January 2007 and broke up the first time in October 2008, which means they dated the first time around for almost two years. The fact they get this simple timeline of events wrong shows how little investigating they actually did.

53. Esme Bianco, who along with the other accusers were feeding the narrative Rolling Stone was trying to establish, says about Manson's videos and interviews supporting and promoting The High End of Low: "Everyone passed it off as theatrical...." Yes, because that's what it was. Manson himself promoted it as theatrical. Nothing about it was meant to be seen as literal. This is how every album associated with Manson was before and was after, as well. Just because you choose to take it literal, doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean it was meant to be. Even if what you allege was completely true, it still would not make his art literal. Nor does it mean Manson was "kidding", as Bianco says with a shrug. Being theatrical and being kidding are not the same thing. Nor was the content of the album anything new for Manson. It was just more concentrated because it was semi-biographical, while also semi-fictional.

54. “Fear is something I instill in other people, mostly young girls.” “When you laugh after you fuck her, it is not rape.” Rolling Stone takes these jokes of Manson as something serious and ominous, like a lot of people who believe the accusers and look back at these jokes. Are they naive or doing this on purpose? Maybe both. Manson has many times said he doesn't consider himself scary at all, but here he is clearly giving a more entertaining answer, in a creepy/cute sort of way, which is not only his trademark, but this is something very common among people with a darker sense of humor. The second quote is Manson playing with people's assumptions. The assumption is that he is talking about rape, when fucking does not necessarily equate rape, but by inserting the word "rape" at the end he is making you think that rape and fucking are the same, though they are not really. 
You can laugh once in a while, Rolling Stone, it won't hurt you. Don't try and convince us you are so virtuous that you can't see something like this for what it is - a joke. If you are going to interpret these jokes as ominous, then admit you are viewing these jokes in light of the allegations and making an interpretation. Don't use them to support your narrative in a manipulative, gaslighting sort of way.

55. Esme Bianco admits she understood Manson was joking when he said a rape joke. She says she laughed. Why? Because she thought it was funny. Why does she admit this now? Because she needs to cover her ass, over the fact that witnesses may come forward saying: "I saw her laughing at a rape joke Manson said." The accusers are often covering their asses like this to obscure the truth.

56. Ashley Morgan Smithline tries to make herself look like she was as pure-hearted as a white lily when she met Manson, innocent as a newborn lamb. At least she admits being "naive". Anyone who follows her social media can see how naive she is till this day. A lot of women are likewise naive, but these are also the type of women who not only know this about themselves, but when they fall for something or someone and at the end of the day become disappointed, they blame the other person and use their naivete as an excuse, or even worse, they accuse others of controlling them. This is something I've seen many women do, especially when they are truly to blame for something. It is true that a naive woman is easy to be used by an intelligent ill-intentioned man. Many men, especially those who have a hard time getting women, flock towards naive women and rely on them being naive to believe their bullshit. Too often, they feel they have no other choice. And yes, a controlling individual can take advantage of someone who naive. But someone like Manson, for whom getting a woman is a piece of cake, it is unlikely he would feel desperate enough to do this. In fact, the only reason he contacted Ashley was because he was working on a movie project, and he was interviewing models online for lead roles. Ashley was not the only one.

57. There are too many details to address in the claims of Ashley Morgan Smithline. They are all demonstrably false. In fact, Ashley faked evidence of injuries she claimed were inflicted on her by Manson and was caught by internet sleuths, causing her to have to delete the generic photo she downloaded off Pinterest she passed off as her own, and the photo was not only found to not be of herself, but it was a photo of a man. And if you try to make out the "MM" scarred on her thigh, it can't be done, unless you fall under a pareidolia spell. In an interview with People she said Manson was always careful to never hit her in the face, because she was a model and didn't want it to look like he abused her, but in the same interview she contradicts herself and says Manson elbowed her in the face and broke her nose. We can go on and on to demonstrate she is a liar, and a proper investigation by Rolling Stone would have done it, but their established narrative would not allow them to do this. They do rightly point out Manson and Ashley hardly knew each other, based on the statement put out by Manson's lawyer. Ashley claims she was with Manson for more than two years, which can be easily demonstrated to be false, including the fact that they have never been seen together by anyone in public.

58. Some accusers point out that Manson implemented biting during sex. Alfred Kinsey studied Odaxelagnia, reporting that roughly half of all people surveyed had experienced sexual arousal from biting. In fact, if you study it, not only is it fairly common among both men and women, but it is also often done without realization. Like spanking and scratching and squeezing, biting is something some people do at a moment of intense arousal. It is by no means an indicator of an abusive person.

59. It's hilarious and self-flattering that Esme Bianco equates Manson saying, "I’ve been a fan of you for years," with love-bombing. This is desperate.

60. The February 2009 allegations of Bianco describe all things she previously agreed to as part of Manson's film, and she was specifically hired because she was experienced in BDSM, and being experienced with it she would know what to do in enduring it, but when it was convenient many years later, she used this as a part of her rape case, and the ridiculous human trafficking accusation too. Funny how after all this, not before, she started dating Manson. If it was all so horrible, why choose to date that person? Is she then admitting to using Manson?

61. If Esme really believed Manson wanted to kill her with an axe, why would she, without his permission, then take his car out with Manson's assistant Ashley Walters, get drunk, and total it. Usually  the message of being chased around with an axe is enough to make you fear that person to take out their car without their permission, and usually someone taking out another's car without permission thinks that person is a pushover and they can get away with anything. Nothing makes sense in these testimonies when you try to reason them out. Plus, if the axe story was true, why has she never put it into context for us so we can understand what happened. She wants us to create our own context, the most frightening one our minds can imagine. This is much better than the "truth".

62. Just a quick comment on the photos used for this article. The Manson photos are generic Getty Images. All the accusers are photographed by different professional photographers for Rolling Stone, showing them serious and reflective and slightly pained. Esme Bianco looks straight at the camera, with an expression as if she has been through something awful. Ashley Walters looks off into the horizon, reflective about all that she has gone through. Sarah McNeilly looks down to her side, curled up, with a blank stare. Ashley Morgan Smithline as always is overacting, but she looks anxious, like a scared puppy, vulnerable; she is the only who got a makeover for the shoot, with hair and makeup by Brittney Yarborough with Allen Edwards Salon, Woodland Hills, CA. Figures she had a special effects makeup artist do her work. Evan Rachel Wood is a Getty Image from her congressional testimony, where she looks like a homeless person that shops at a second hand store. Of course, the photos are all part of the narrative.