Thursday, May 08, 2008

An Important Distinction

With everything in the media now, Sadie's impending death, Squeaky's unlikely but alleged flip and the pursuit of imaginary victims at Barker, along with Debra Tate's newfound desire to make the murder of her sister all about her (disgusting) with false interviews and stories about musty clothes, it is important as TLB scholars to focus on the truth.

Nothing Debra Tate says should ever be regarded as anything but self serving.
There are no bodies at Barker Ranch,
Sadie doesn't "deserve" to die a horrible death (nobody does) but does not deserve much sympathy either.
I think the chances that Squeaky betrayed Charlie at this point about as likely as the US "winning" in Iraq.

What annoys me most at the moment is that people just quote Helter Skelter as truth. It is FILLED with lies and slanted reporting.

Here is how to handle it-

If it is from a trial transcript it is probably correct.

If it is a "quote" then it is probably made up.

I don't believe half the shit Susan or Leslie allegedly said.

Three bodies at Barker? Sure Bug.

DO NOT use a novel by a deluded District Attorney who assaulted his mistress and stalked his milkman as a definitive tome about anything.

We want the truth people.

That is all.


Brian Davis said...

Thank you for keeping us focused Col ! Great posts ! SALUTE !

zoomjaw said...

If it is true about Susan Atkins being near death,I wonder if her words to Sharon Tate are coming back to her now?One has to wonder.

Anonymous said...

Bugliosi's summation correctly identified the true motive force behind these murders - Charles Manson's obsessive hatred of society. All of the BS in this case boils down to the fact that CM's hatred and homicidal rage, which he instilled in his followers, is what caused all of these events.

It is clearly proven by the words and actions of Family members that those driving out of Spahn Ranch that August were seen as "soldiers" in the war against the "establishment". "Going out to get some piggies" was how they viewed their mission. What the hell is that if not "Helter Skelter"? And who's idea was that? Call it something else if you like. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" ? "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band"? Fine. But nobody wrote those words in blood at a crime scene. It was "Healter Skelter", right? How many times does Pat Krenwinkle have to say she viewed herself as a soldier for people to grasp this? And what about the obsession with dune buggies and "command vehicles" and "bunkers" and Armageddon supplies? What were they for?

May I also point out that Irving Kanarek rebutted the Helter Skelter theory in front of the jury for SEVEN DAYS. Either the jury discounted the motive, but found guilt anyway, or they found Bugliosi's argument persuasive.

The only "mystery" here is the ulterior motivations of Manson in singling out these particular individuals. Frankie Carbo? Frykowski? Melcher? Free Bobby? Any or all of these could have been swirling around in Manson's head, but it seems clear that his followers only saw themselves as soldiers attacking the designated hate object of the Family, society at large. Bugliosi wisely stuck to a story that could be corroborated by witnesses, such as Paul Watkins, and physical evidence, such as the "Helter Skelter door" and the blood writing at the Labianca's.

It is Manson's hatred of society which continues to inspire followers today... you can see that in some of the comments here and elsewhere. Were it not for that, NO ONE WOULD EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, because the truth about it is really no great mystery. All those currently imprisoned are guilty of murder and they seem to lack genuine remorse for anyone but themselves.

Mansonism is the home for angry people who blame all of the ills of the world, and in particular all injustices which they themselves feel that they have suffered, on our society. This then leads them to the conclusion that the legal system has no right to punish people for things like murder, because society sanctions murder via war, and is destroying the environment, etc.

The TRUTH ABOUT THE CASE is that those currently imprisoned, Manson included, are some of the STUPIDEST MOST OBVIOUSLY GUILTY CRIMINALS in the annals of crime. They left traces of themselves all over the crime scene. They blabbed about their doings. Manson thought that simply standing aside and letting others do the actual killings would be a valid defense against murder charges. What a dope.

And they did it all out of hatred born of narcissism and an aggravated sense of grievance. There's your truth.

Anonymous said...

The Truth about the Tate-Labianca Murders.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Blipcrotch, I beg to disagree.

We aren't at all motivated by a hatred for society; otherwise, we'd just stand aside and allow the corporations to destroy the majority for the glorification of the few. We'd not protest dumping nuclear waste into wells from which citizens drink. We'd not advocate alternative forms of fuel, which would reduce the pollution in the air that everyone must breathe. If we hated society, then we'd simply sit back and watch our government ruin it for everyone.

Yet we realize this society is at its end phase. Happened to Rome, happened to the Celtic empire, happened to Byzantine, and now it's happening to us.

However, never before in the history of humankind has one empire had the power to take down the entire world, the entire biosphere, by its own greed. How many people will die, when this finally ensues?

"George Washington was seen as a criminal by the English government, and the US Navy was seen as Pirates". -- Charles Manson, May 03, 2008

Anonymous said...

AC, I feel sorry for you. Charlie's criticisms of society are infantile. Charlie has no education to speak of. He is ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of western society. He has never heard of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes. He has no suggestions on what system he will substitute for our current social and political institutions that will feed, care for, protect and permit the maximum liberty of the 300 million people in this country. Charlie thinks "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a brilliant exposition of a new social order, when it actually is a moderately entertaining but ultimately insignificant piece of pulp science fiction. Charlie has the discernment of a child. To him, a comic book and Plato's Republic are equal.

Charlie is hate. He is currently hiding behind environmentalism, but that is a sham for him to mask his hatred of all humanity. Just check out all of the trash and garbage in the form of junk cars, etc, he left behind at Spahn. He only cares about himself. When he had freedom, he destroyed everything that he touched. He wrecked lives. He caused misery. He continues to pollute the minds of persons such as yourself. No good will ever come from identifying yourself with Charles Manson, because there is no good in him.

In short, dear AC, to Charlie, you are a tool. He needs followers to justify his world view and feed his ego, and to give him a connection to the world outside of prison. Other than that, you are just a soulless wench to him, a tool which he will discard when it is no longer useful.

I wish you well, I really do. I know that some basically good people can be taken in by the "All is One" confusion that is Charlie's contribution to our intellectual discourse. I sense.... I sense... some flicker of recognition in your writing. Stop being a mere follower, nourish that flame of skepticism and truly free your mind.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Hahaha, this is the third or fourth time this week that I have been called a "tool". I think the teenage slang term has a slightly different meaning, however.

Gosh, I just can't seem to win for losing, here, Blipcrotch. If I agree with Charles, then I am a mindless follower, unable to formulate my own opinions. If I disagree with him, or Gods forbid, remark upon his human foibles, then I am slipping the collar. If Charles makes a statement that should be patently obvious to everyone -- say, pointing out that crapping in ones own nest is unhealthy behavior for any species -- then he is being sophomoric. Yet if he speaks in poetic metaphor, then he is spreading confusion.

Grant me a little credit, please, for having some modicom of sense.

You state, "He has no suggestions on what system he will substitute for our current social and political institutions that will feed, care for, protect and permit the maximum liberty of the 300 million people in this country."

Um, who died and made this OUR job? One major revision of the entire universe at a time, please; currently we're trying to figure out some non-violent methods to preserve the ecosystem and raise awareness of environmental issues. Someone else is going to have to figure out how to restructure the entire social order this week. Perhaps Mr. Obama feels himself up to the task.

You stated, "Charlie has no education to speak of. He is ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of western society. He has never heard of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes."

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone who was basically abandoned to fend for himself as a young boy, thereby receiving a scanty education and very little socialization, can not only make such brilliant observations as he does, but who still enjoys such an amazing zest for life. As I wrote on JimNY's blog, please thank your parents and the federally-funded public school systems that you were blessed with your fine education, a warm place to sleep, and subsequently a decent career. For what purpose are the majority of us using our expensive Amerikan schooling?

Anonymous said...

Notice that I did not call you a tool, I said that to Charlie you are a tool. I'm too old for teenager stuff, I was just thinking in terms of an inanimate object of some utility that exists to serve it's owner. When the tool is no longer useful, you give it away or dispose of it.

The historical facts show that Charlie's life was no great nightmare until he entered the institutional world due his inability to get along with society. The "no name maddox" story has been duly debunked on this blog I believe. He had loving family members who tried to help him, and his aunt has said that his problem was not that he was deprived, but rather that he was spoiled. This is also true of Tex, Leslie and some of the others.

His ignorance is willful, not the fault of society. He is simply a disturbed individual who can't tell the difference between a pineapple and a hand grenade, to use a metaphor for his lack of ability to discriminate among the various cultural ideas and artifacts that are out there. Hence "All is One".

You know nothing of my life or my personal obstacles, for example, so don't go assuming... my interactions with you are on the basis of what you have written, not what I pretend I know about you. I do respect true wisdom and knowledge (as opposed to comic book type arguments), I am less concerned about where it is acquired. A library is a good place to start. If Charlie is going to set himself up as a political philosopher and critic of society he should have some information. If he is too lazy or stupid to inform himself, then he is just a poseur.

Charlie's great street skills always end up with him locked up. Not because society is bad, but because he can't handle the responsibility that comes with being a free man. Also because he is a lousy criminal with no self control and frequent outburst of irrational rage. He survives well in prison. But so does the much hated Tex Watson. And the somewhat less despised Bruce Davis. And Sirhan Sirhan. And David Berkowicz.

Sorry AC. You've been duped. Charlie's not special.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Blipcrotch, I apologize for assuming, yet you've made several incorrect assumptions about my life, as well. And may I state that my presumption about your schooling is based upon your writing style? It's apparent you've had a decent education and access to some of the socially valued rewards -- um, like a computer and Internet.

You stated: "The historical facts show that Charlie's life was no great nightmare until he entered the institutional world due his inability to get along with society."

I find it rather difficult to believe that anyone is or was unable to 'get along with society' from age 3 to age 7, which is the first time that he was abandoned by his biological family. Or at age 11. My son is 11, so I personally consider it appalling that anyone would think that a child wouldn't be traumatized by such an event.

Blipcrotch remarked: "his aunt has said that his problem was not that he was deprived, but rather that he was spoiled"

Those folks thought that having more than one pair of shoes was being spoiled.

"His ignorance is willful"

Not at all. He was diagnosed as mentally retarded in approximately the third grade. In those days, the public schools did not do anything more than warehouse children with learning disabilities. I find it simply amazing that he essentially taught himself how to read and write (with help from Red and Blue). Other inmates read to him, he constantly asks for the definition of unknown words, then incorporates them into his vocabulary, and he has a didactic memory. While I consider myself fairly learned, Charles constantly dances rings around me in good-natured debate.

But to expect him to look up information in a library is unrealistic. My daughter, who has similar learning challenges, cannot do that, either. Yet she can design a web page, and I can't, and he can repair an engine, and I can't. Learning skills are relative.

And maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps those of us who are top-heavy with education can't make simple observations about our own world. "Each time I came out of prison, I noticed that there was less water, that the creeks were drying up, the rivers were dying. There were always more cars, and the air was getting worse. I asked who was in charge of that, and they told me 'no one'." A person does not need extensive book learning to process this information.

But is anyone actually doing anything about it? I'm told that the Colorado River will be dry in 10 years, since it's being piped to California to fill chlorinated swimming pools. Why aren't all the college-educated authorities throwing a collective conniption? Nope, they just think they'll come here to Michigan and rob the Great Lakes for their drinking water, and my answer to that is "over my dead body". Does this mean I despise people? Not really; I merely love my shoreline more.

Anonymous said...

AC, I have no problem with people being concerned about the environment. I have no special regard for people with college educations, or politicians in general.

I also have no problem with you, personally. You argue your points well. You're intelligent. You have passion. Please don't get the idea that I think you are a bad person. And please, for goodness sake, don't think I am calling you names!

I just don't like "Mansonism". Especially false equivalency arguments. Charlie uses them like a battering ram: the "George Washington was an outlaw" is a classic Charlie-ism. OK, so if George Washington is an outlaw, and Charlie is an outlaw, then... Charlie and George Washington are the same! And yet, they persecute Charlie and put George Washington's face on a dollar bill! The injustice! The persecution!

If you read about GW... I mean get beyond the cartoon character GW, you could not invent a man more diametrically opposite to Charles Manson. And that's important to me, because finding out the truth about things is important to me. GW wrote lots of stuff, and his life is pretty well documented.

Beware the false equivalency argument, because it is one of the principal techniques Charlie uses to dismantle an individual's capacity for critical thought, and the Charlie program is inserted. Then, "All is One". Death becomes life. Hate becomes love. Nihilism becomes spirituality. By wrapping himself in "the environment" he now becomes all compassionate and all caring, just like by attaching himself to George Washington, he becomes the soul of honor, duty, selflessness and love of country.

And BTW, Charlie didn't invent modern popular "environmentalism". Just as an example, read the liner notes to the allbum "Future Blues" by Canned Heat, released in 1970. Again, Charlie doesn't create anything new. He just references obvious stuff. From the book of revelations. From scientology. From Robert Heinlein.

In short AC, ditch this loser ;)