Groan Box In The Meat Show

Here is a fellow who is not insane (although he is an idiot) who believes that Monsignor Manson is genuinely monstrously evil - a possibility with which I am very enamoured.

He proposes that Manson sought/seeks to aggressively & systematically demoralize his own audience, without them noticing, in order to create dependency. He suggests, for example, that MM's objective in drilling his listeners over and over and over again with the phrase:

We're disposable teens
We're disposable teens
We're disposable teens
We're disposable

was not the stated one of providing an empowering outlet for the sense of frustration and alienation experienced by many young people in contemporary society - but rather to, on a very direct and visceral level, remind and reinforce to teens that they are indeed disposable to him and worthless in general - keeping them down and in their place, and inspiring them to perversely greater heights of devotion at the same time.

I do not find this theory entirely implausible.

Comments

[Adam]

Well they said the same thing about Satan.

[teigan]

Ah, but the point is, the guy I've linked here isn't some religious nutter. He doesn't believe MM is the antichrist or an agent of Satan. He just reckons he's a psychopath.

Which could well be true. There's a lot of it about.

[teigan]

Also, the signoff in Disposable Teens, which officially goes:

The more that you fear us
the bigger we get
the more that you fear us
the bigger we get
and don't be surprised, don't be surprised
don't be surprised when we destroy all of it

is very eminently hearable as:

The more that you feel that's
the the way you will get
the more that you feel that's
the the way you will get
and don't be surprised, don't be surprised
don't be surprised when you discover this

This whole thing is interpretable in a slightly kinder light by taking it as an example of Mazza's much vaunted "I'm teaching people not to be stupid" credo. In other words, "I'm trying to demoralize you, kids - your job is to be smart and strong enough to resist my efforts. Good luck! PS Give me all your money and power. Go on, you know you want to. Yes you do. Don't argue. You love it, you little shits."

[teigan]

It's also interesting to note that this guy has singled out that song (which is ostensibly about baby-boomer hypocrisy, although he doesn't appear to consciously understand this himself) for particular enmity - since he is himself a hypocritical baby boomer.

[Mite]

You know, the whole 'hearing things differently' happened to me with "The Beautiful People". I was going to suggest it broke the theory as he sings about 'Beautiful People' (which I heard as an ironic 'we're beautiful people, beautiful people'). Then I read the lyrics and remembered that it's more about the cult of vanity and repeating disgust at it. So maybe we hear what we want to hear. Perceptions of the same thing can vary.

It's like hearing "China in your hand" by T'pau and thinking it's a sappy love song when (apparently) it's about Frankenstein (!) - which makes it kind of cool. The music itself sounds like it should be a love song and most people would take it as one without thinking about the lyrics. So in M M's case the music sounds like "I'm one of you and I hate everything too" so most people will take it that way.

That said, there's a school of thought that says that is just the hook to draw you in - underneath there's a whole subliminal thing going on that will eventually subvert the individual's mind. Isn't this, after all, what branding is built on? Say something three times and the listener won't forget it.

It could be that M M is one of those in the music industry cynically manipulating perceptions that way, but I doubt he's the only one. Should we be scared? Probably not. But it helps to be aware.

Oh, and by the way - I'm a disposable teen.

Also - I'm prone to rambling. Sorry!

[teigan]

"(which I heard as an ironic 'we're beautiful people, beautiful people'). Then I read the lyrics and remembered that it's more about the cult of vanity and repeating disgust at it. So maybe we hear what we want to hear. Perceptions of the same thing can vary."

It's all so terribly interesting, this - wish I had more time to think about it. The phrase "The Beautiful People" is clearly meant to be hearable as referring either to "us" or "them" depending on your inclination.

Ultimately people only ever hear/see what they want to hear/see, and what their experience prepares & inclines them to hear/see.

Manson himself makes a numerous observations along these lines in his book. Vis, the Warners exec who vetoed his use of a naked pic of himself as a child on the "Portrait" sleeve: "People will say it's child porn. We could get in serious trouble." "But it's just a baby photo.. of me! It's YOUR child porn, not mine!"

Anyone who works in mass communications knows about this phenomenon, or learns about it fairly quickly.

"That said, there's a school of thought that says that is just the hook to draw you in - underneath there's a whole subliminal thing going on that will eventually subvert the individual's mind."

I'm aware it will sound paranoid to many - but frankly I find it implausible that there aren't all sorts of subliminal-manipulation plots behind expensive media products. The secrets protect themselves by way of the fact that people are so afraid of such ideas, they dismiss them out of hand.

"Isn't this, after all, what branding is built on?"

Yes!

"Also - I'm prone to rambling. Sorry!"

Ramble alll you want

[Mite]

Hey - look. I can do a short post.

"I find it implausible that there aren't all sorts of subliminal-manipulation plots behind expensive media products."

They do it on an associative level for sure - the 'lifestyle' element - selling the ideal life to demographics showing the product giving them the life they want. Isn't that a kind of subconscious thing? You see the life you want and buy the product because it fits. Even though you probably don't need the perfume or car or whatever.

Okay. It's a shorter post.