"Without National Socialism you have no WWII. Without Helter Skelter you have no TLB murders".
I wouldn't take it that far, Poirot...
The Manson men took care of Shorty Shea quite handily... and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS).
Manson and TJ also left Bernard Crowe for dead, and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS), either.
The Manson men clearly demonstrated, that they were capable of committing crimes (up to, and including murder) for practical reasons (i.e., reasons they perceived as practical).
They didn't need "HS" as a motive.
Without HS, we may have had different perpetrators at Cielo and Waverly.
We probably would have had more men, and less misguided young girls.
Things may have "gone down" differently without "HS".
I'll give ya that much.
But to state beyond doubt, that these crimes WOULD NOT have occurred AT ALL without HS, is a stretch.
You can't know that for sure.
I'm sorry Poirot.
But, your statement is too broad.
HS was a piece of this puzzle... but, it wasn't the entire enchilada.
Tex Watson, Charles Manson (and the "upper management" LOL) had their sites set on Cielo Drive and Waverly, for reasons beyond HS.
HS was a manipulation tool Manson used (among many manipulation tools) to execute TLB, but it wasn't the underlying motive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2...
Poirot Responded:
LS you are boiling down HS as nothing but race war preachings which is an oversimplification of what HS was about. HS was more vast.
HS was mainly an ideological turbocharger that turns economy class hippies into drag strip commandos.
Helter Skelter was the rage and anger that spewed fron Charlie's skidzoid mind after he lost control of his mental faculties in late 68.
For example: if the Man jailed a few of Charlie's girls in 67 he didn't give a shit. If the Man did the same thing in 69 he would lash out at ALL society
Race is just one little aspect of HS.
Keep in mind I don't care if some folks don't agree with HS. Frankly I think it nicely encompasses the entire catastrophe.
Wow Poirot...
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, on that one. LOL
My feeling:
Manson had several "raps" which he used to entertain the kids... and HS was simply one of them.
HS caught-on with the kids, and Manson went with it.
Somewhere along the line, Manson realized that he could use that angle to manipulate.
I've never viewed HS, as any more than that.
It was simply a manipulation tool.
(One of many, manipulation tools)
In fact, "HS" wasn't even very original.
There were lots of folks talking "revolution" in California at that time.
And, I certainly never believed that HS was a motive.
Do you really believe that Cielo and Waverly were chosen randomly?
I certainly don't.
They went to Crowe's place intentionally.
They went to Hinman's place intentionally.
They killed Shorty Shea intentionally.
(Heck... you can add the Willetts if you want).
None of those victims were complete random strangers.
They knew Crowe... they knew Hinman... and they knew Shorty... and they knew where to find them.
These perpetrators went to locations intentionally... and killed people they knew... for a reason.
Albeit really shitty reasons... but, reasons nonetheless.
They weren't random serial killers.
I've never believed for a moment, that Manson REALLY believed in HS.
Heck...
Bugliosi himself, stated the same thing (on one of those reunion shows).
Bugliosi explained that Manson probably didn't believe in HS himself, but simply used it as a manipulation tool.
Several folks around the internet, try their darndest to dispel HS (as a motive) with weak logic.
I'll lend them a hand... 'cuz I'm that kinda guy. : )
Here's the biggest loophole to HS... and this is the question, that I would have posed to the prosecution, if I were Manson's defense attorney:
Why did Manson stop killing after 48 hours?
I mean...
If Manson really believed that the end of the world (as we know it) was at hand... and he was going to emerge victorious... why would he throw-in the towel so easily???
Ya gotta admit:
For an idea that Manson was supposedly consumed with... he certainly gave-up almost overnight.
If you look at this question in full context... it doesn't make sense.
Full context:
After a year of preparation... stockpiling arms... hiding gasoline... looking for a hole... stationing look-outs... target practicing... building dune buggies for Armageddon.... Manson had a change of heart after just two nights??? That really doesn't make sense.
Fact is... Manson never really believed that stuff.
It was simply a ruse to keep the kids occupied and obedient.
I can see it now...
Charles Manson:
"Well... it's been a long two days... and I guess blackie doesn't want to cooperate.
Pass the bong... and drop your panties Sadie". LOL
I don't buy it.
49 comments:
I'm not trying to pick on you Poirot.
But thing is...
When folks make blanket statements on my blog... folks assume that I agree, unless I state otherwise.
It's just business....
That freakin' cat is awesome. LOL
solid points on Shorty and Crowe, LS.
Manson's main schtick was to blur the lines between life and death - will you die for me?
Though I did think MrP's analogy with national socialism was at the very least provocative. And I do think most of your blog readers are accepting of the reality of individual bloggers "theorizing" without said theories being endorsed by you.
"Not the whole enchilada" is a good phrase. And the secret ingredient remains more guarded and elusive than those of Col Saunder's or Coke's.
Don't ya wish we could just put Charlie on the rack and be done with it. Ah, for the good old days.
LS you are boiling down HS as nothing but race war preachings which is an oversimplification of what HS was about. HS was more vast.
HS was mainly an ideological turbocharger that turns economy class hippies into drag strip commandos.
Helter Skelter was the rage and anger that spewed fron Charlie's skidzoid mind after he lost control of his mental faculties in late 68.
For example: if the Man jailed a few of Charlie's girls in 67 he didn't give a shit. If the Man did the same thing in 69 he would lash out at ALL society
Race is just one little aspect of HS.
Keep in mind I don't care if some folks don't agree with HS. Frankly I think it nicely encompasses the entire catastrophe.
Helter Skelter for me is a faith based ideology not a political of socio-economic one. And it appears to be one based on revenge and retribution.
lynyrd said:
(quote)
They went to Crowe's place intentionally.
They went to Hinman's place intentionally.
They killed Shorty Shea intentionally.
(Heck... you can add the Willetts if you want).
None of those victims were complete random strangers.
They knew Crowe... they knew Hinman... and they knew Shorty... and they knew where to find them.
These perpetrators went to locations intentionally... and killed people they knew... for a reason(end quote)
Poirot replies:
Exactly.They were now killing people for seemingly different reasons: drug burns, money, copycat for misdirection etc.
They weren't doing this in 68. Why?
Enter the violent, rage filled ideology that had been superimposed over the hippiedom kick.
This was Charlie's Helter Skelter driving their murderous rage. They would sit around dreaming up murders. Elizabeth Talylor and Frank Sintra come to mind. Charlie's Helter Skelter trip had brought them into a paranoid state of frenzy. They were even trying to kill each other.
The people following the Manson story who deny Helter Skelter was motive are looking at individual trees. They don't see the forest.
HS doesn't imply random murders. I believe the only "random" murder is the Labiancas. The killers were familiar with the neighborhood, and it's possible that Charlie drove there with the intention of going in to Harold's old house (Philip Kaufman thinks so), but when met with opposition decided on next door...
Technically the Crowe drug burn WAS for HS. It was for money to get to the desert.
Hinman was about money. For what? I imagine to get to the desert. And they tried to blame it on the panthers, so I will chalk this one up under HS.
There is a lot that goes into Tate. That 1st week of August was bad for The Family. The day the girls are arrested at Sears is the night Charlie sends people to Tate's. It was a haste decision full of anger and not much thought. Tate keeps the theme of panthers alive for HS? or to free Bobby? They didn't get much money so what did they accomplish? They scared the shit out of everybody!
The next night was intended to do the same. Do not forget that Charlie and the gang drove around for hours trying to select a house, and after selecting the Labiancas he sends the rest to kill some other random guy that Linda knows. People LOVE to forget this. "Healter Skelter" was written at the crime scene for christ's sake, "WAR". Rosemary's wallet was left to be found by a minority... to place blame on them.
They killed Shorty because they thought he was a rat, which fits into any motive.
Lynard said...
"Why did Manson stop killing after 48 hours?"
Why did the chicken cross the road? That's one hell of a defense. You should represent Zimmerman instead.
Oh Brother...
(Sigh)
Should I even waste my time?
Revatron...
Maybe tomorrow evening when/if I've got absolutely nothing better to do (with my time), I'll respond to your nonsense.
I'll pick apart your crapola line-by-line.
Right now, I'm not in the mood to spoonfeed you.
In the meantime...
Try to formulate an answer to my question.
Why did this "all-encompassing" "master plan" of "HS" fold after just 48 hours?
I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.
I don't know
That's your response?
LMFAO
You gotta love blogging...
If Katie were here right now, I'd ask her to put a bullet in my head. LOL
Is it because they already got the drugs from Tate, and the money from the Safeway, and delivered it to the Mafia??
Why don't you, Lynard, tell me instead of LYAO and LingOL?
Revatron,
If you adhere to the HS motive, there IS NO obvious answer (to my question)... and therein, lies the whole point.
There may be an answer (to my question) out there somewhere... but, it's certainly not self-evident.
Manson dropping "HS" so suddenly (if you adhere to HS), just doesn't add up.
It's a loophole.
Fact is..
Manson DIDN'T do a 180 after 48 hours, because "Helter Skelter" was never HIS motive to begin with.
The underlings probably believed they were killing for HS.
(The one's who left "Healter Skelter" and "WAR", as you so aptly reminded us)
I believe that's true.
As for Manson... no way.
Whatever was in Manson's head... it was thoroughly quenched on those two fateful nights.
Whatever Manson's motive(s) were for Cielo and Waverly... it had been executed.
"Business" had been handled.
Manson was satisfied (for the time being).
Manson DIDN'T wake-up on the third day, and suddenly decide that he was done with "Helter Skelter".
For Manson... there was no 180 from HS within 48 hours, because Manson never believed the HS crap to begin with.
"Helter Skelter" was simply a ruse Manson used to get the kids to do his bidding (killing) for him.
I'll get to your other post tomorrow...
I don't purport to know what Manson's true motives were...
But, I'm personally convinced that Manson never believed the "Helter Skelter" story in earnest.
Manson was way too street savvy, to be taken-in by such fantasy.
One thing I know about street people and criminals:
They think in practical terms.
Everything is a "means to an end".
They're survivors.
As my dad would say... "they're all wised-up".
You don't survive on the street (or, in prison) by being gullible.
You folks can believe whatever you want... that's your prerogative.
As for me... I don't believe Manson was an HS believer.
Manson was an HS "user and manipulator" sure... but, not a believer.
I think the problem here is you are unable to separate Manson's & The Family's HS from Bugliosi's HS.
Bugliosi wants you to believe that Manson really thinks he is Christ, really is trying to set off a race war, and was really killing at random.
Many people believe in HS and don't buy any of that. HS was real to a lot of The Family. Was it real to Manson? Almost certainly not. All we know for sure is that he was a prejudice man.
I don't think anyone can deny Manson's desire to get to the desert even before the murders began. Bugliosi wants you to think he was going out there to start a tribe and look for water. I really can't speak to any of that. I just think he liked the desert.
To quote mass murderer Colin Ferguson, "Can't we all just get along?"
I thought that was Rodney King's quote?
Revatron said:
"I think the problem here is you are unable to separate Manson's & The Family's HS from Bugliosi's HS.
Bugliosi wants you to believe that Manson really thinks he is Christ, really is trying to set off a race war, and was really killing at random.
Many people believe in HS and don't buy any of that".
---------------------------------
Ok Revatron... I'll play along.
Please explain to me the difference between Bugliosi's HS, and "the Family's" HS.
personally I don't believe manson believed in helter skelter but he used it to control people. but there is an explanation, that everyone seems to forget, as to why the murders stopped after the LaBianca murders. remember Watson's mother asked a friend of his to have him call her. manson knew this and to stop the murders Watson told manson the fbi or police went to his parents house looking for him. so manson knew the police were onto at least Watson so it was time start trying to get back to the desert. who knows if this is true but it is what Watson claims.
48hrs? Where'd ya get that timeframe Lynyrd? How long between Hinman and Shea?
Whether Charlie believed HS or not is neither here nor there.
The Aug 16 raid prompted the desert exodus. There was a shortage of people to kill at Barkers. Had the Family remained fugitives through winter they would have had to return to warmer climates close to civilization. Killing would have ensued again.
The question is what made them turn violent? Charlie would not have shot Crowe in 68. Charlie was still the hippie in 68. He would have BS'd his way out of the Crowe burn prior to HS.
Hey Beauders!
Good to see you.
I don’t place a whole lot of stock in Tex Watson’s word… but, assuming your information is accurate (and Tex’s word is truthful ~cringe~), it further underscores my point, that Manson didn’t really believe in HS.
If Manson really believed in HS… i.e., that a race war was eminent, and everyone except his “family” and “blackie” were about to perish… there would be no need to fear the police.
Yes Poirot… 48 hours.
You believe that “the family” killed on August 9th and 10th, to ignite HS right?
Well…
Why didn’t they kill on August 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th… and son on (and so forth), until the job was complete???
If Manson was so maniacally hell-bent on igniting an eminent race war, then why did he abruptly discontinue operations?
Did it rain on the 11th? LOL
I’m really starting to wonder, if You or Revatron even read the thread content.
August 9th and 10th is two days, which equals 48 hours.
Lynyrd to answer your question as to why HS only took place once and was not a rolling revolution may have something to do with revolutionary activity being confined to weekends.
The weekend after TLB was the Spahn raid, and the one after that Manson was arrested again with Schram for possession.
This may well have changed the focus from revolution to retreat to the desert for re-grouping.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Yes Poirot… 48 hours.
You believe that “the family” killed on August 9th and 10th, to ignite HS right?
Well…
Why didn’t they kill on August 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th… and son on (and so forth), until the job was complete???
If Manson was so maniacally hell-bent on igniting an eminent race war, then why did he abruptly discontinue operations?
Did it rain on the 11th? LOL
I’m really starting to wonder, if You or Revatron even read the thread content(end quote)
Poirot replies:
You're just looking at trees Lynyrd.
the mark of a good con is that he believes half his lies. the mark of a great con is that he believes all his lies.
I think it is a rare person, LS, who thinks HS was the only tune playing in Manson's head back in '69.
But I lean a bit more to Mr P's and rev's perspective here. I tend to base allot of my feelings regarding TLB and HS on small vignettes in the story.
DO you remember when Charlie et all were arrested at Barkers and they had that long ride back into town. From what I read Charlie spent the whole ride discussing HS with the deputies that had arrested him and telling them they better get wise fast cause it was all coming down.
Now why do that? Just as a goof? He basically was handing a motive to whoever was going to prosecute by opening up to the deputies.
And as I have said many times, one thing that stays with me the most about the case is the quote from sweet Ouisch to Donkey Dan out at Barkers where she said "I can't wait to off my first pig". That shows to me that the HS/race war/'kill pigs' mentality had permeated a good portion of the Family.
Questioning why someone would stop a certain behavior (or, as I believe in this case, temporarily suspend said behavior) is simply questioning human nature. Often there is no rhyme or reason. Or in Charlie's case obviously there could have been a hundred reasons to alter course. Maybe it was even something as simple as his feelings for Stephanie become stronger and with that a desire to split the scene with her. That was the case before TLB, so who's to say.
Applying logic to Charlie Manson is like trying to apply ethics to Lance Armstrong - a slippery slope at best,
Chris, I think Shorty Shea was killed on a Tuesday....
Has everyone here gone nuts?
---I've got Revatron telling me, that there's two different versions of Helter Skelter.
What?
Two Helter Skelters?
---I've got Chris telling me, that the mission of Helter Skelter was a weekend-only occupation.
Part-time Armageddon?
---I've got Poirot telling me point-blank, that without Helter Skelter there is no TLB... and in the next breath, he's telling me that Manson's belief in Helter Skelter "is neither here, nor there".
Manson was supposed to be the "mastermind" of Helter Skelter.
That's why he's in jail.
---I've got Beauder's quoting Tex Watson, as if, he's a credible witness...
---Leary states:
"That shows to me that the HS/race war/'kill pigs' mentality had permeated a good portion of the Family".
I thought, I already said that?
I said... the kids believed in HS, but Manson didn't.
Seriously folks...
I've had times, when I've lost track of one bloggers point.
But, quite frankly... I don't know WTF ANY of you are talking about.
Evidently...
No sense, DOES make sense.
It's Independence day, and I'm trying to enjoy it.
If I have time later tonight, I'll try to sort this whole thing out...
I'm not understanding anyone... and obviously, no one is understanding me.
Bottom Line:
This crap about no HS equating (unequivocally) to no TLB, just can't be proven.
Without HS... Manson wouldn't have had his "zombie girls" killing at Cielo and Waverly for him.
I agree... Manson wouldn't have enjoyed that benefit.
Heck...
You can lump Tex in there too, if you want.
Tex may have been one of Manson's "duped girls", as well.
He always struck me as somewhat of a bitch anyway...
BUT...
No one can say for SURE, that Manson, Davis and Grogan wouldn't have visited violence upon Cielo and Waverly themselves, at some point.
Those guys didn't need "HS" to exact violence.
Take my word for it.
Manson had a hair across his ass about something... and he may have scratched that itch, without (or without) the help of his "HS zombie girls".
Poirot's statement cannot be proven definitively.
As I said in the original thread:
Without HS, we may have had different perpetrators at Cielo and Waverly.
We probably would have had more men, and less misguided young girls.
Things may have "gone down" differently without "HS".
I'll give ya that much.
But to state beyond doubt, that these crimes WOULD NOT have occurred AT ALL without HS, is a stretch.
You can't know that for sure."
I stand by my assertion.
you're thinkin to hard LS.
the conversation here is really just about hypothetical degrees.
It seems to me that almost all, certainly myself, agree 100% that TLB would have taken place EVEN WITHOUT Helter Skelter. But NOT without Manson. So it is easy to see how folk equate the two. I agree that they shouldn't.
OK...
FINALLY a comment, that makes some sense.
WHEW!
Thanks Leary... I owe ya one.
Evidently... I HAVEN'T gone completely mad!
(Not yet anyway)
------------------------------------
Leary said:
"The conversation here is really just about hypothetical degrees".
Exactly!
Without HS, it's LESS LIKELY that violence would have occurred at Cielo and Waverly.
It's "less likely" because Manson would have had less tools to work with (i.e., no zombie robots at his disposal).
Hence...
The "probability" of violence at Cielo and Waverly is diminished.
It would have required "greater lengths" on Manson's part, to make things happen (at Cielo and Waverly) without his "HS zombie troops".
Without HS... Manson would have had to take a more "active role" personally. (If you know what, I mean)
Or at a minimum... the "mission" would have involved "dirtying the hands" of his "upper-crust" compadres.
Ergo:
I agree, with that concept.
(The concept of "diminished possibility")
BUT, here's the problem Leary:
That's not what Poirot said... and, that's why we're here.
The "degree" of Poirot's statement was absolute.
Poirot said:
"Without National Socialism you have no WWII. Without Helter Skelter you have no TLB murders".
Look...
Charles Manson had "issues" (LOL)... and his behavior was WAY too unpredictable, for anyone to throw down the gauntlet (as Poirot did) in absolute terms.
Manson and Davis could have climbed into a car... drove to Cielo... opened fire with two blazing pistols at 3AM... and walked out.
How the funk, can anyone predict FOR SURE... with 100% certainty... that violence WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED without HS?!
AND furthermore...
Because I really don't believe Manson's motive was HS (in the first place)... the likelihood of him visiting violence on those locations WITHOUT HS, can never be diminished to zero.
So...
You're right Leary.
This argument all boils down to "hypothetical degree".
Poirot made an absolute statement.
To which, I responded:
"I wouldn't take it that far Poirot. You statement is too broad".
And quite frankly Leary... Poirot's statement IS too broad.
Poirot would need a crystal ball, to predict with absolute certainty, what "wouldn't have happened" sans HS.
-----------------------------------
As an aside:
I think it's pretty obvious, that Leslie was not an "upper crust" shot caller.
Leslie asked to "go along".
Does a high-ranking "in the know" shot-caller ask to "go along" at the last minute??
I think not.
Leslie was a "follower", if ever there was one.
Leary said:
It seems to me that almost all, certainly myself, agree 100% that TLB would have taken place EVEN WITHOUT Helter Skelter. But NOT without Manson. So it is easy to see how folk equate the two. I agree that they shouldn't".
Thanks Leary.
And here-in lies the other problem, with this discussion.
If someone said (to me), that these crimes occurred simply because Manson was a really mal-adjusted, pissed-off, bitter mofo... hell-bent on "revolutionary change"... I'd say... it's possible.
Not probable... but possible.
BUT...
Manson being bitter, ill-adjusted, and "reactionary" does not equate to "Helter Skelter".
It's not the same thing.
And as you suggested Leary... that's the other "communication problem" we're having here.
"Helter Skelter" (whether folks want to believe it or not) was a concept outlined by Bugliosi, with very specific goals, motives and parameters.
There's no way Manson believed "HS" hook, line and sinker.
It's just too specific.
Now...
If folks want to distort HS into two, three or four different concepts and loosely-defined meanings... well then... we're just chasing our tails.
Charles Manson being "Cray-Cray", pissed-off and reactionary, does not equate to "Helter Skelter".
Heck...
One could EASILY throw ALL the Manson Family crimes under the heading of "Cray-Cray", pissed-off and "reactionary"... that's a pretty big grab bag.
But unfortunately... it's not Helter Skelter.
(Not in terms of a TLB discussion anyway)
Thanks Leary.
You restored my sanity, on this Independence Day.
For a minute there, I thought I was losing it. LOL
Thanks for putting things into perspective.
"Hypothetical degrees"
I like that... LOL
And now... if everyone will excuse me... I'll be in my office, with a beer. LOLOL!
Well Lynyrd, I'm behind you all the way on this one...
However, I disagree with those who believe Charle was/is racist...
Leary said:
"And as I have said many times, one thing that stays with me the most about the case is the quote from sweet Ouisch to Donkey Dan out at Barkers where she said "I can't wait to off my first pig"
This to me is contradictory of racism...
In the '60s, a "pig" was either the white establishment or a cop... if these white kids were racist, why would they want to off whites?
I also don't believe Manson/Atkins/Krenwinkle got a fair trial...
I was watching an old video of Melvin Belli - he commented on the Nixon statement ... he (Belli) commented (as fact) that it would be a mistrial and they would have to start over...the interview was done while the trial was in process...I'm not a fan of his, but I do consider him an expert of sorts...
I don't base my opinions on just the above...there are many factors..
Just my 2 cents...
I don't believe Watson either it's just that people state there is no reason given why the murders stopped after two nights, but Watson does give one.
If police had publically released that they found the word healter skelter written in blood on the Labianca fridge several people stated they would have immediately known who the killers were. However, Paul Crockett didn't need a hint. Upon hearing on radio about the LA murders he turned to Paul Watkins and asked him if he thought Charlie and The Family were behind them.
I disagree with those who classify the dead victims into two classes. Hinman and Shea are just as dead as Sharon Tate and the Labiancas. The same rage-filled cult brainwashed with helter skelter's violent theme murdered them all.
Maybe Poirot... maybe...
But, that's the whole point.
You can't know for certain.
I agree with some of what you're saying.
I believe that "Helter Skelter" written in blood, was a significant clue.
Bugliosi likened it, to Manson's fingerprint.
I also believe, that HS was discussed by "the family"... and yes, many of them believed it.
One might even say, that most of the kids believed it.
I'd say "most" is accurate.
And yes... by the end, the entire operation met the classic criteria for the term "cult".
I'm on the same page with ya, on a lot of points.
But here's the rub Poirot:
Manson was a criminal and con, before he ever met these kids.
He was manipulating them, from day one.
If it wasn't one "con" (HS), it would have been another.
To say that none of these crimes would have occurred outside the realm of "Helter Skelter" is just a leap, that I'm not willing to take.
You can't know that for certain.
I believe, that the kid's unwavering devotion to Manson, is the one common thread you can weave throughout (not HS specifically).
If you want to paint with a wide brush... that would be the key.
Manson could have said to Squeaky:
"Go kill Hinman with that gun RIGHT NOW, woman."
And quite frankly... I believe Squeaky would have went (and made the attempt).
I don't think Manson would have had to mention the words "Helter Skelter"... or even given her a reason at all, for that matter.
Heck... when Squeaky found out that Manson may have had cancer, she broke out of prison and ran around in the woods for a few hours. LOL
(And that was decades after TLB!)
The common thread Poirot, is that these kids were obedient to Manson.
Manson could have formulated any number of raps (besides HS), and they would have taken the bait.
I KNOW how things went down.
We don't have to retrace all of history.
To say (definitively) that without "Helter Skelter" there is no TLB (to me) is not possible.
In fact... it's kinda foolhardy.
Manson was a criminal, and these kids were residing within the confines of a cult.
They could have been manipulated by any number of "cons".
The unwavering devotion of these kids, within the confines of a cult setting might very well be considered a "necessary ingredient".
But as for HS... I don't see it.
Manson definitely could have accomplished his "tasks" with other methods.
Even the "unwavering devotion" part is not really an absolute... because, I believe there were a few folks at the ranch who were still fairly independent of Manson.
Bruce Davis is one, who comes to mind.
And for the record:
I've never believed that Manson "believed" the HS story himself.
I also believe, that Manson chose each crime location for his own personal and/or pragmatic reasons.
"Helter Skelter" had nothing to do with Manson's choice of crime locations.
Which brings us back to square one.
You've made some good points... but, your original statement was too broad.
Big time kudos to LS and MrP for disagreeing intelligently and with respect. Both made solid and provocative points. I am totally on board with the assessment that while Helter Skelter was in fact instrumental in TLB it was not essential. TLB in some form would no doubt have taken place even if John and Paul hadn't written that song. (Was it them?)
BTW, where are all the ladies? Is Katie okay?
Lynyrd said;
Manson could have said to Squeaky:
"Go kill Hinman with that gun RIGHT NOW, woman."
Poirot replies:
Manson would not have said that to Squeaky prior to 69 because Manson had not turned violent yet. He had not deluded himself into his Helter Skelter trip. He had not gone off the deep end until 69.
Just want to say, this is probably one of the best threads on the topic of Helter Skelter.
On both sides. And I say this as a Helter SKEPTIC.
What the girls thought is interesting to a point, what I want to know is what Tex thought both nights. And why Tex as the only male.
LIVSEY: The Manson Women
around page early 100s.
Makes a point about Helter Skelter possibly being perceived as no more than a game/role play.
One of many games.
The Family philosophy being: do want you want. There is no wrong.
Bunch of anti-social people in search of endless sensation, excitement and thrills, exhibiting immature behaviour and not adjusting to adulthood led by an increasingly paranoid sociopath.
Gives the impression that this behaviour, including promoting an "us versus them" philosophy with regard to wider society, and an ever increasing criminality within the group, could have led be itself to members committing thrill kills for the sake of maintaining an increasingly uninhibited lifestyle where anything goes (with the paranoia of its leader increasing).
So Livsey gives the impression that the group could have killed without Helter Skelter as an underlying motive.
lol Mr P.
It was late '68 ..when the White album came out.
Wassup Louis.
At the close of 68 the Family was still a peaceful tribe. Buck knives had not been passed out yet. But Charlie hears the Beatles start talking to him from off the White Album.
One of the symptoms of pschizophrenia is "hearing voices".
I don't believe Manson was hearing voices in his head. I'm thinking he is more along the lines of someone with Paranoid Psychosis.
Mind you, Manson is an extremely hard person to classify, and I'm no psychiatrist
Post a Comment