Alright... vigilantcitizen.com starts their analysis of Beyonce by saying
Along with her new album, Beyonce has presented her fans to a new alter-ego named Sasha Fierce. The singer affirms that this new persona is the fun, more sexual and more aggressive side of her. This is however the “general public” version of the story. The esoteric meaning revealed by the symbols surrounding this new persona is much deeper: Sasha Fierce is a symbolic representation of an artist taken over by evil to obtain success.
Lots of shy people say they need to "create" and "alter ego" in order to perform. Beyonce claims to be a shy and reserved person. Also… Most people suppress their more sexual sides. (People are multi faceted) So… Shy person + sex sells + I need to keep my America's sweetheart status somehow so I can continue to make the big bucks = Sasha Fierce.
This corset is being called "Baphomet's Vehicle." ("Vehicle" is misspelled on the site. Conspiracy theorists on these sites seem to be slightly illiterate…) Baphomet is basically Satan in some polytheistic cultures. Google that. However this exact same corset was seen in a George Michael video from 1992 that was styled by Thierry Mugler… You can see it at about the 1:20 mark. Regarding that "coincidence," the author of the site says, "This exact outfit was used for a George Michael video...someone. somewhere though it would be a perfect fit for Sasha Fierce."Um… Could it be that the same person did the costumes for both?
So the site says Beyonce is possessed by the devil and it happened when she released "Crazy in Love." They say, "The video tells the story of the birth of Sasha Fierce by depicting the steps towards Beyonce’s transformation." You're going to have to go to the site for the break down on this because it's interesting, but it would take too much of my time to paraphrase it here. However… remember my formula before? Beyonce was going from a girl group to a solo career. It makes sense that Sasha Fierce would be "born" at this time.
Then there's the comparison between Beyonce and a character from the movie Metropolis. Any likeness to this character has to be attributed to the person designing costumes for Beyonce. Thierry Mugler.
The author concludes this by acknowledging that "Record companies like Columbia Records own the image of pop stars like Beyonce or Rihanna." And then goes on to explain that these companies are owned by people in secret societies who understand these esoteric meanings even if the general public doesn't. If that's true, that's cool. But what does that have to do with Beyonce? How does that make HER possessed? She doesn't own a record company...
Oh… But her HUSBAND does… Which brings me to these conspiracy theorists other favorite target… Jay-Z. Everyone says Jay-Z is a Mason and they have all this evidence. Some say he's a devil worshipper aaand… they have evidence for that too. The author on vigilantcitizen.com mentions Jay-Z in the Beyonce-to-Sasha Fierce analysis but s/he doesn't make a real connection. THAT would be damning evidence, I think. Jay-Z is the devil and Beyonce married him so of course these love songs she sings now are for the devil. Of course she's possessed now. AND their relationship started around the time of "Crazy in Love" (well… actually… some time before "03 Bonnie and Clyde" so… '01, '02 but work with me here…) SO… BAM! That's plausible. But no. They don't make this connection.
In my opinion… If you're going to talk about folks selling their souls to the devil to make money in the record industry Jay-Z is the perfect person to start with. His status, his rise, in these terms pretty much makes him the devil. Now… I disagree with this. But for argument's sake… He came from nothing and now he owns pretty much everything associated with himself. On top of that… The other people these conspiracy theorists like to attack are associated with him in some way: Beyonce, Rihanna, Kanye West, and… in a stretch, Lady Gaga. Watch the videos that "expose" Jay-Z here…
Vigilantcitizen.com also devotes some of its time to showing that Rihanna is possessed. My favorite evidence is their analysis of "Umbrella." The author starts by saying that s/he was confused by the lyrics of the song at first then decided "If you listen closely to Rihanna and Jay-Z’s words, you might notice that the lyrics do not make any sense The vocabulary used in this song is not about a relationship between two lovers. The fact is, Umbrella is about a subject matter that is sinister, dark and disturbing: becoming possessed by evil." Then they go on to analyze Jay-Z's verse… This part is laughable to me. They talk about how he's rapping about being "higher than weather" "hydroplaning in banks" "stacking chips for a rainy day." They're connecting Jay-Z to this financial crisis saying that Rockefeller created the crash in 1929. Sooo… Jay-Z created this one since he was "anticipating precipitation" ??? And he calls himself "Rain Man" which means he's possessed by the devil. This analysis shows me that the authors known very little about rap and rap culture. They say "Jay-Z lyrics have NOTHING to do with love, friendship or any type of relationship."
Of course not. A LOT of raps on R&B songs have NOTHING to do with the song. Instead Jay-Z was talking about the rain, not necessarily the Umbrella and the love… Moreover… Jay-Z is always talking about how much money he has. He's used the "in anticipation for precipitation, stack chips for a rainy day" line in other songs. He talks about G5s all the time. "Hydroplaning in banks" … Ever heard of "making it rain" yeah. Just so happens that Jay-Z is Jay-Z. He can't say something as cliché as "I make it rain." Duh. But fine. This verse is evidence that he's the devil and he makes these things happen and he's here to get Rihanna.
Moving on to the song… Again… The analysis is super extensive and pretty interesting so you should just go read it. However… the things that stick out is the turning of trivial things into super important things like the "Ella ella eh's" in the beginning of the song… I love how the author "translates" the lyrics of the song and breaks down the video to its simplest symbolic meaning, the "rape" of Rihanna by the devil.
They even note that "Rihanna dances while performing defensive gestures. She is trying to protect herself from the chrome liquid, which represents the seminal fluid of the Devil. The liquid hits her a total of 6 times" Interesting. Also… They claim she makes her body into the head of Baphomet:
THEN they say "You see the two eyes, snout and the long horns. This frame has been digitally manipulated to look like this because it is anatomically incorrect. No human can assume this position in real life." I'll have to take a picture, but when I first read this, I made my lanky, flexible brother position himself this way. He was successful. Maybe HE'S the devil?
The author had me ready to believe Rihanna was possessed until this nice little gem: "Before leaving a comment, please make sure that I’m VERY AWARE of the fact that Rihanna DID NOT WRITE this song and this fact changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the analysis." And then it hit me! The song was written by The Dream. Which doesn't change anything about the analysis per se… But it DOES change the subject of the possession from Rihanna to The Dream, right? He wrote it, so it's about HIM talking to the devil and becoming possessed. Didn't come from Rihanna, so she's just the vehicle to get The Dream's experience out in the open. That the author knows this and insists that his/her analysis of Rihanna is still valid tells me that s/he's on a witch hunt and Rihanna is the target and she WILL fit this diagnosis regardless...
Moreover… They position themselves as experts on the industry. The Lady Gaga commentary is interesting because of that. However… They miss the mark when they discuss Jay-Z because they don't seem to know about the culture. Some of the vocab they flag as Satanic is slang, clever wordplay. Of course… they'd say, "YES IT IS clever wordplay! Satanic subliminal messages!" Goodness. Ok.
I mentioned in the beginning that this stuff is repetitive. If you read all the information, they point to the same stuff just on different people. To me, that doesn't show that all these folks are possessed by the devil. It shows that NOTHING is original, new, or edgy like the artists purport when they're selling us this junk. These people aren't so much as possessed by the devil as they are pawns of an industry. If anything WE, the buying masses are possessed by some force because we tend to believe this stuff is so great despite having seen in the same form before AND on other people right now. This Sasha Fierce look that Thierry Mugler created "for" Beyonce, he also used for Ciarra. And you see a lot of the same lines and outfits on Lady Gaga. And even Shakira's newest stuff looks like this.
Further Reading:
Read and watch it all here, here, and here.
About Metropolis and hey... I like Wikipedia sometimes...
Thierry Mugler's vision for Beyonce
About the exhibit that piqued Beyonce's interest
Comments
Post a Comment