Mr. and Mrs. America - you are wrong.
I am not the King of the Jews nor am I a hippie cult leader.
I am what you have made of me and the mad dog devil killer fiend leper is a reflection of your society. . .
Whatever the outcome of this madness that you call a fair trial or Christian justice, you can know this:
In my mind's eye my thoughts light fires in your cities.
17 comments:
OMG, ROFLMAO...are you from NY?
thank the lord charlies hair is long again .
"Fires in the cities"... Didn't that actually happen out there in LaLa Land, in 1992, after the Rodney King verdict?
Right, the LAPD came closer to starting Helter Skelter than ole Charlie ever did. Yes, I'm from New York (State) and am thankful I don't pay taxes to such a shitty judicial system as those Los Angelenos have had to do all these years.
Still trying to fight the urge to burst into 'Disco Inferno',burn, baby, burn.
Yes..., sure, it is allways the others faults...damn... can't anybody see those crimes were premeditated months in advance by CM...he wanted STP to be killed and LLB to be killed...the 2 who simply said "no" to him or were "rude" to him... CM was jealous and spiteful... the 2 worst motives for murders , ...but of course he managed to not be involved himself in the effective murders, he prepared a few well prepared "friends" to obey him when timing was right...
Of course, I do not pretend to have all the answers , and I may be totally wrong, ...in that case , CM should be rehabilitaded as the worst judiciary error of all time...sorry dude ...if it is the case...you meant well and should be free ...what a waste !!!
Good Lord.For the love of toe jam...
Angelos: Assuming that what you say is accurate... and Charles "prepared a few friends to obey him"... were they, like, allergic to the word "No" ?
Angelos,
Manson is a bad dude, we all know that. This bit about how Manson wanted to kill STP and LLB because they treated him badly is interesting...but unlikely. I would love to hear something that would back up this theory that actually holds water.
It is much more likely that LLB was a contract killing, undertaken by Manson, and that Tate was a test of Tex's abilities and a way to throw off the fine members of the LAPD. Manson himself has somewhat confirmed the first via his connection with Frankie Carbo.
A.C. Fisher Aldag a dit...
Angelos: Assuming that what you say is accurate... and Charles "prepared a few friends to obey him"... were they, like, allergic to the word "No" ?
Good point A.C. ...
How can people actually "obey" to suggestions or orders...
an answer is like in the army, people are drilled to say yes, and when they would like to say no, they can't because...they just can't...
with CM I would think TW and Co wanted to please CM and were so f****** scared to death with his negative reactions...so to just say please Charlie not tonight, I do not want to trucidate any people tonight, I do not even know, no please no, not tonight..."no" espescially the 8th august 1969 that was beyond their strengh...as awfull and crazy as it may be...
With all due respect, AngeLos, I'm having a difficult time integrating that theory into my own personal construct of reality. Tenuous as that may be!
My position as mesmerized cult follower aside, the notion of a dimunitive-statured musician so ferociously bullying Mr. High School Football Toughguy and four or five other people so badly that they were too effing terrified to say "No" to committing murder... it just doesn't seem logical. Or from a psychological standpoint (Check me on this, Cat's Cradle, please) really plausible.
The army analogy is a bit different... in the military, one signs a contract and is paid to perform a service, which includes, well, killing people. One can refuse a direct order, say "No", but one must pay the consequences... a courts-martial and time in the brig. It does, however, require conscious thought.
I think this is the point that Charles was making in his statement posted to the blog: That America needed a demon as a focal point for our collective fears, and he got the short straw.
But, if you read the quote at the side of the front page of the blog, Charles admits to being a con man. (which does not lend credence to telling the truth and the statement Charles doesn't lie).
People came and left the ranch, and some committed crimes and others ran off.
In the essence of being a self-proclaimed con man, it would make absolutely no sense to have gone and done things without some kind of profit.
The whole army concept flies quickly out the window along with the baby's bathwater. And really I am not trying to be curt,but it really makes no sense.
Aye, yet bullying and conning are two entirely different loads of bananas.
And, while this may shock the patriotic citizens of this fair nation, the Army uses both techniques.
Which returns to my original query... does personal responsibility for ones behavior not demand the judicious use of refusal in the face of either technique?
Yes for you made the choice to go either way.
If I choose to stay and curtsey and do something, then the responsiblity lies within myself for the action, in other words.
I think it goes beyond mere bullying and intimidation. the fear they experienced wasn't just of Charlie, it was of the whole group and of each other, and it wasn't normal everyday fear. a whole group psychology thing, a shared madness. throw in considerable doses of peer pressure, lsd, speed, belladonna, and the sense that society was rapidly disintegrating around them as well as coming after them. Charlie played a major role in creating that dynamic, and he downplays that role now.
That said, they were all responsible for their own actions.
Post a Comment