Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#111204 - 01/11/17 12:08 PM Charles Manson - 2017
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
It started as gossip on TMZ and escalated to news reports . Charles Manson's Health was reported to be in pretty rough shape. At 82, the rumor was that he required some sort of gastric surgery but that was later squashed. Local News agencies were stalking local hospitals hoping to get a glimpse but that only produced responses such as Alleged Friend Claims Manson is not Near Death .

MANSON DEAD! circulated for a few days but I don't think anyone with a serious interest bought it.

Tate's Sister has heard it all before and rarely takes these rumors seriously.

In 2017, Manson is still a decent hook to propagate information. He'll most likely die in prison but not yet...



Edited by SIN3 (01/11/17 12:14 PM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111205 - 01/11/17 12:22 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
One of his pals posted a 'post hospital' conversation with him.

https://youtu.be/F06GXYQPsQs

Sounds pretty good (at least pretty much like he's been sounding for the past few years).

He's a sith ghost \:\) He'll be even more powerful when he departs the mortal coil.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111208 - 01/11/17 02:57 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
That guy's enthusiasm is annoying but I agree, Charlie sounds about the same, though he does sound a bit out of it (Pain meds perhaps?).

There's been quite a few 'friends' of CM posting to youtube but none that included a recorded phone call. The others just claimed he was shanked or killed in some other fashion. What better way to get Youtube hits? Paid advertising and all that jazz.

Best thing about that video was the Hitler doll.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111209 - 01/11/17 03:08 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
There's a few more who do it as well... I think one's connected to Sandra Good in some way (boyfriend maybe) and the other was on a few of the 90's talk shows (you tube is Michael's back porch or something). Some interesting first hand stuff in those calls about other arrests, life in general.

I once asked UV Ray if Manson was the subject of all of the C/S 'scapegoat' discussion as it wasn't ever specific (but had a heavy focus on being blamed for crimes). He says no but I can't think of a better example myself.



Edited by Fnord (01/11/17 03:08 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111212 - 01/11/17 05:35 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
Best thing about that video was the Hitler doll.


Agreed. \:D

The ones that really get me are the people on Investigation Discovery. Death wishes, prayers for suffering, can't die soon enough...are all but a few of the cries and wails from those viewers.

The irony, as I have pointed out to them, is that the channel that they watch is 100% blood money. It isn't like they are telling these stories out of the kindness of their hearts or giving the profits of their station to victims families.

Hell this xmas they had a homicide marathon for forty-eight hours where some lucky viewer could win $5000.00

Wonder how the victims families felt to know that their loved one's murder was being exploited on the holidays to give the lucky winner of the contest five grand.

But then they want to come back and hang stuff on Charlie, while trying to claim moral authority of some sort.

That is what gets me. People are entertained by blood, death and murder all of the time or channels like ID, true crime books, etc would not exist.

The people who produce those things are making blood money, thus their moral tongue wagging proves to be the height of hypocrisy.

The difference is that some people kill while others sit back with a bag of pop corn and watch all that they can about the killings on tv.

Top
#111213 - 01/11/17 05:37 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
I once asked UV Ray if Manson was the subject of all of the C/S 'scapegoat' discussion as it wasn't ever specific (but had a heavy focus on being blamed for crimes). He says no but I can't think of a better example myself.


UV Ray...now he is one cool cat in the CoS in my opinion. Level headed, not swollen up with himself, not pretending to be anything other than what he is. Not to mention he is a Hell of a writer.

Top
#111214 - 01/11/17 06:04 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: LoneWolf78]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: LoneWolf78

UV Ray...now he is one cool cat in the CoS in my opinion. Level headed, not swollen up with himself, not pretending to be anything other than what he is. Not to mention he is a Hell of a writer.

Agreed, have enjoyed some limited back and forth w/him over the years.

RE: Manson,

My prime interest is the magical working (AKA 'Helter Skelter') that Bugliosi wove into the tapestry of the world. It's nearly complete glammer, based on intangibles and hearsay. It turned out to be one huge, wickedass spell that has people believing/repeating bullshit for almost 50 years.

The blood and death isn't interesting to me at all. Discovery shows are though. It's not the gore or the fact that people murder. It's always the process on both sides (that cat and mouse) that's interesting to me. Plus some of the hosts have personality. Kenda comes to mind. Straight up Satan to a murderer.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111216 - 01/11/17 06:34 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
Agreed, have enjoyed some limited back and forth w/him over the years.


So have I. It is a shame that there are not more in the C/S like him.



 Quote:
My prime interest is the magical working (AKA 'Helter Skelter') that Bugliosi wove into the tapestry of the world. It's nearly complete glammer, based on intangibles and hearsay. It turned out to be one huge, wickedass spell that has people believing/repeating bullshit for almost 50 years.


Agreed and very good point. I think that sometimes that people forget that reality and truth are two entirely different things.

The truth is that you plant a seed into the ground, you nurture it and it grows. That is one example. My point is that truth cannot be created.

Reality on the other hand is entirely created, crafted, and subjective. You can bend the will with reality. You can get people to believe any reality that you want. In fact, belief feeds the reality. Enough believers can turn a lie into the reality of a "well known fact"..is an example on that level.

Bugliosi created a reality much in the way that many religions are created.

 Quote:
The blood and death isn't interesting to me at all. Discovery shows are though. It's not the gore or the fact that people murder. It's always the process on both sides (that cat and mouse) that's interesting to me. Plus some of the hosts have personality. Kenda comes to mind. Straight up Satan to a murderer.


Ah...the thrill of the hunt. Fair enough. I understand that one well. It is an adrenaline rush and sometimes a fine line between the hunter becoming the hunted.

I do like Kenda, don't get me wrong. I also like the ID network as a whole. Good point about Kenda being a Satan to some...hahaha. There was also an episode where he could have played into the whole Satanic Panic thing and he didn't and instead displayed levelheadedness. My only contention are those that watch it without realizing that they are enjoying it or being entertained by it on some level and instead think that sitting in their lazy boy eating chips, and clucking their tongue about the "wrongness" of what they have seen and the "what has the world come to?" nonsense that these type espouse...does no real world good and hardly makes them a moral authority.

Top
#111230 - 01/12/17 10:58 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: LoneWolf78]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
 Quote:
It turned out to be one huge, wickedass spell that has people believing/repeating bullshit for almost 50 years.


I probably only know as much as the next person about the Manson incident. I've read about the whole affair a couple times.

What strikes me is how these people were conditioned, an example of manipulation wherein varying associations with reality are altered. Manson's orders weren't mere commands, they were treated more like prophecy. Apparently Manson used LSD and other physical and psychological tacticss. One of the women even said in an interview that she suspected Manson never took LSD and that he was always calm, composed and confident.

But I wonder, were these people so ordinary from the start? Were they strong or easily influenced/did Manson have to work hard at his manipulation? I wonder how big a role the drugs really played.

In any case, what's mostly overlooked is the fact that Manson was not the one committing the horrible gruesome acts, but the women. Yet when speaking, the reports often refer to Manson as the serial killer, as a kind of Jack the Ripper himself and the women were only accomplices, yet in reality it was the women hwo were in fact bathed in kegs of redrum.

 Quote:
My prime interest is the magical working... The blood and death isn't interesting to me at all.


Same here, but I often wonder why they wanted these people killed in such a way. Was it irrational lunacy? Its disturbing to think about. These weren't quick deaths, they were executed with morbid cruelty. Yet killings like these do happen every day around the world.

I wonder how much hype it would have taken if it were poor, unknown people in place of the rich and well known. Perhaps Manson would have an entirely different status as a random forgettable nut job, than having become a celebrity himself.

*What I mean by that pertains mostly to this:

 Quote:
The people who produce those things are making blood money, thus their moral tongue wagging proves to be the height of hypocrisy.


Its been going on for a long time, and the media makes money off of it any way they can. It all speaks of blood thirsty minds, the actual killings and how many times the media exploits it, all for a quick buck.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#111233 - 01/12/17 12:21 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii

What strikes me is how these people were conditioned, an example of manipulation wherein varying associations with reality are altered. Manson's orders weren't mere commands...


That's part of the spell that Bugliosi cast. I don't think they were conditioned at all. I think they gradually separated themselves from societal mores and began to see themselves as 'at war' with the establishment. In this way, warlike behavior was adopted and encouraged. Each person acted according to his/her will. It wasn't, IMO, some mass brainwash. Charlie's influence was in showing them the truth of natural vs societal law and his role in those people's crimes is grossly overstated IMO. It was, perhaps, difficult for people to face that those kids could have done those things of their own free will. Manson was a scapegoat and Bugliosi clearly admits to this on several occasions in Helter Skelter. He 'felt' Manson was responsible and so framed his entire argument (without a whole lot of evidence) to play it that way to the court.


 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii

In any case, what's mostly overlooked is the fact that Manson was not the one committing the horrible gruesome acts, but the women. Yet when speaking, the reports often refer to Manson as the serial killer..


That's LoneWolf's contention... and my own as well. People have bought that the scapegoat is at fault despite the fact that the real monster was probably Tex Watson.

 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii

Same here, but I often wonder why they wanted these people killed in such a way. Was it irrational lunacy? Its disturbing to think about. These weren't quick deaths, they were executed with morbid cruelty. Yet killings like these do happen every day around the world.

I wonder how much hype it would have taken if it were poor, unknown people in place of the rich and well known. Perhaps Manson would have an entirely different status as a random forgettable nut job, than having become a celebrity himself.


I think the killings were the product of inexperienced hands. Irrational lunacy, panic and fear all fit.

I think Manson definitely saw himself as at war (ATWA) with society. To him, the wealthy and successful consumer population was definitely the enemy and so attacking poor folk wouldn't have been something he'd have thought of. Mindless consumerism is a real hot button for him... you can see it in every interview.

For me, I had to watch the interviews many times before I began to see and understand where he was coming from. It's a different mindset (an underworld one), and he goes off on tangents, but if you listen carefully you can pick it up. I'd say the Charlie Rose interview is the best place to start if you have interest and haven't seen it yet.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111237 - 01/13/17 05:51 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 118
I have read Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter a few times and must admit that I was fascinated by the conjured representation of Charles Manson and the “family” which I found there. I think many people needed to revel in that representation and hence a whole “representational industry” was developed around Manson and his family. It was an industry which made some people rich, some people successful and left others titillated, morally upright, or “wonderfully frightened.”

Representations of the Other always tend to make many of their creators rich and successful or else smug and self-satisfied.

I am very aware of the power of representation and I tend to scrutinise the motives of the people who are designing and implementing representations.

The only representation which I think educates the audience to some extent about Manson’s worldview is Schreck’s film Charles Manson Superstar. Sure Manson talks about his naive dreams around ATWA, or his more sinister interest in Abraxas, or even explains his interesting view of alterity i.e. the way the so called straight world is mirrored in the criminal world and vice versa. But there is something more profound as far as I’m concerned in Schreck’s film - Manson shows himself to be very aware of the way he is perceived and constructed or represented as an image or an Other.

Do you recall the way he mimics faces - rapidly changes his facial gestures so he is smiling one moment, or scowling the next, or looking bored the next, and then adopts a crazy mask after that? You can only ever access him as an ultimately limited series of shifting changing appearances, gestures, emoticons, or semiotic signs – you just represent him, according to your own needs and what others have convinced you he is. You never really get to him, and he often says: “I am only what you put into me.”

Maybe his point of view about representation and image is obvious to many, but his views struck me as rather insightful and his attempt to play, to perform, to clown, to demonstrate how he is constructed for mass consumption seemed to provide him with a type of freedom – possibly the only freedom he can access. You can’t ever access me; all you see is another surface and I can play on that and poke my face at you.

I certainly think his role as an Other has slowly died over time. There are many Other contemporary consumer products out there to construct and stare and point at.

Top
#111242 - 01/13/17 09:03 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
That's part of the spell that Bugliosi cast. I don't think they were conditioned at all.


Agreed. Without Bugliosi, the impact within the 'justice system' in contrast to how headlines influence society is my main interest.

Today, it hasn't lost it's shine, not one bit. All the recent headlines describe Manson has a serial killer and brainwashing mastermind. Furthest from the truth. Manson exploited the fanfare and resounded himself to be the sacrificial lamb. In that regard, his fans still call him Jesus.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111247 - 01/13/17 12:15 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Dark Magician]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
Regarding your statement about Manson's role as "other," I think the acceptance of Bugliosi's narrative has much to do with Manson being transformed into the failed bogeyman archetype that we see today. It is still the popular belief that Bugs' "Helter Skelter" theory is the whole truth of Manson's Master Plan. There is very little factual information to prove that this was ever really the goal. It was however, completely necessary to package him in some sort of easily graspable role for the public to condemn him.

The fact of the matter is, it was only very questionable and conflicting testimony that supported Manson's role in the Tate/Labianca murders. And, the portrayal of the "Family" as some sort of murderous cult, completely in the sway of Manson, is easier to accept for mainstream "straight" society. It is terrifying for those who cling to the illusion of State controlled safety and order to imagine people peacefully and happily living outside of that order.

In order to get a conviction, Manson had to be cast as a dangerous mastermind, wielding a plan for the destruction of Western Social Order. To invite the public to contemplate the validity of a contradictory social order would be to show the absurdity of the American way of life. It was only through creating a very narrow and fixed image of Manson, that it was absolutely necessary to lock him in a cage. If he is an aberration in the sequence of America's progress to a Utopian State, then he must be culled. If he represents an inevitable reaction to Authoritarian enforcement of an unnatural ordering of social behavior, then all of American Culture is the aberration.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#111250 - 01/13/17 03:06 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: LoneWolf78]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: LoneWolf78


Agreed and very good point. I think that sometimes that people forget that reality and truth are two entirely different things.


I like my other Uncle Anton's view on 'real reality'.

https://youtu.be/GB6aC9JcyRo
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111252 - 01/13/17 04:33 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
Truth. Now there's a word. People aren't really interested in facts or hard evidence they are only interested in the story. Provided they are not a player. Any number of these finger pointers in the hot seat would demand PROOF and what evidence determines TRUTH.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111254 - 01/13/17 06:11 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416

 Quote:
I like my other Uncle Anton's view on 'real reality'.

https://youtu.be/GB6aC9JcyRo


Oh, agreed. There are many different realities.

I would also say that everything is subjective.

Top
#111315 - 01/26/17 10:36 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
Saw the Charlie Rose interview. I think I get what he's saying, but I could be wrong.

Seems Manson says these people came to him because he was self sufficient, and these folk idolized him for it.

He goes on to explain that the places of the killings were places "Tex" had been before. I don't know for sure but it sounds to me like Manson is saying he never instructed any of their actions, but only told them they 'needed to do whatever they thought they needed to do,' while also giving them little bits of advice such as to 'leave something witchy.'

*He also makes mention of vietnam and Nixon.

I don't know enough details to know if this is correct or not. I will have to do more research sometime.

In another interview with Diane Sawyer he says he doesn't want to see anyone killed, yet he has a history of violence, albeit likely out of survival than pure malice. Just my interpretation of his word, could be otherwise.

Interesting thus far.

What say?


Edited by Creatura Noptii (01/26/17 10:45 AM)
Edit Reason: *
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#111316 - 01/26/17 10:44 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
In the documentary 'Manson' some of the people that lived on the Ranch were interviewed. The sense I get from all of that was that, as a group, they got really caught up in the orgies, LSD and political talk (mostly coming from the College kids). Still, I don't know that it would be enough to mind-fuck the group to commit murder. The younger men spoke about how the 'girls' were like a predatory group that would prey on men using sex to get them to do what they wanted. For Charlie of for themselves, is the question.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111341 - 01/28/17 04:56 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
What say?


Manson got a bum rap. Charles "Tex" Watson was the real "mastermind" behind the Tate/LaBianca murders.

Charlie liked fucking, getting high, and philosophizing. What others took from that is their business, and their karma. Why else do you think Charlie wasn't there at the Scene? Exactly.
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#111342 - 01/28/17 12:31 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Megatron]
Coligula Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/26/15
Posts: 35
Loc: Shithole, Uruguay
I forgot the name of the earless dude from that wolf band something... I remember: Nikolas. I couldn't put time to what he said, but seemed more reasonable of what I knew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaLJmetoVWQ
Dangerous ideas.

Top
#111376 - 02/01/17 11:40 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
What is his proven history?

See Timeline if not for Susan Atkins running her mouth, he would have likely received a minor sentence for the car theft (if convicted).

If Manson were tried today, I think the trial would have just gone faster, with Social Media - he would have been tried in the court of public opinion without Bugliosi's narrative of Helter Skelter.

Tex was constantly pointing to himself. Yet, Manson took the wrap as the mastermind behind the whole thing.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111464 - 02/15/17 12:20 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
What say?


 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii

He goes on to explain that the places of the killings were places "Tex" had been before. I don't know for sure but it sounds to me like Manson is saying he never instructed any of their actions, but only told them they 'needed to do whatever they thought they needed to do,' while also giving them little bits of advice such as to 'leave something witchy.'


Most important is Manson's philosophy of 'pay a brother back'. Also, context. That bit about the 'circle'? You work with yours to pay what you owe (in your way). I don't believe those actions were dictated by anyone but Tex.


 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
*He also makes mention of vietnam and Nixon.


Very specific ideas about war and what one risks and gains by engaging in combat. No difference between state/government sponsored war or individually declared war (to Manson). By the by, Nixon said Manson was guilty during the trial (which Manson attempted to use to get his case thrown out). I think this put Nixon in Manson's cross hairs.



 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
In another interview with Diane Sawyer he says he doesn't want to see anyone killed, yet he has a history of violence, albeit likely out of survival than pure malice. Just my interpretation of his word, could be otherwise.


Not really (history of violence). He shot a guy in self defense (Bernard Crowe), again, over trouble caused by Tex.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#111467 - 02/15/17 05:22 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Fnord]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
BUT Crowe never reported the incident to police.. For prosecution purposes, it can't be used as a legit 'crime' or a trend of violence attributed to Charlie.

The TV interview Crowe did (1971) seemed to have confirmed Manson's retelling of events vs. a confirmed murder attempt.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111477 - 02/17/17 10:58 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
Holy shit. Pun intended.

Never knew about this

What the fuck and why?!. Man, people are fucking nuts. I don't know who's crazier.

I don't know why Tex did what he did, it makes little sense to me. I've heard he published a book but it will likely involve a delusional perspective. The guy was a nutcase, and this woman seems just as crazy trying to get him out, and doesn't seem to be very rational in explaining herself either.

What's next, is she one of the women who he was allowed to get pregnant? Who would let women in with this guy?!

I guess they're kind of doing the same thing in Europe right now.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#111478 - 02/17/17 11:34 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
It's akin to when Mothers take their child's killer as a surrogate. There's a deficiency there.

Tex still holds that Charlie instructed the murders as part of a larger agenda. He tries to play down his role by saying he was just naive and vulnerable.

The rest of the 92' interview. Here, he's trying to support the narrative that Charlie was Love but that if you wanted to keep that love, you'd have to do shitty things.

I think Charlie has all but given up, he knows he's going to die in there.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111741 - 03/11/17 11:00 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Abc is showing a Manson documentary this Friday.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#111751 - 03/12/17 06:23 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: fakepropht]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
I think the media is going to keep making money off him long after he dies. There will probably be a Michael Jackson/Charles Manson mashup conspiracy TV special in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised.

I'll not be watching it since I don't have a subscription to TV. Maybe when its on YouTube and I can watch with adblock.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#111755 - 03/13/17 11:05 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: fakepropht]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
I saw the Preview on Facebook , sensational and the usual clap trap. Nothing to see there. I'm guessing it gets ratings because Charlie was recently in the hospital.

It reminds me of that scene in the Devil's Rejects film, where Adam Banjo is talking about the sensational tv that keeps people plugged in and buying TV dinners.


_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111806 - 03/15/17 12:39 PM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: SIN3]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
Should make it clear that in my last comment I wasn't trying to make fun of Manson so much as point out my disdain for the media itself.

Speaking of which, I finally watched the entire interview where he does his infamous dance, and also speaks about why he has a swastika on his forehead. Guess it makes sense, but I wonder if he knew that people generally weren't going to understand. It's never mentioned in the media or anywhere except that video far as I can tell.

Guess it just goes to prove his point.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#112474 - 04/22/17 01:00 AM Re: Charles Manson - 2017 [Re: Dark Magician]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
Representations of the Other always tend to make many of their creators rich and successful or else smug and self-satisfied.

I am very aware of the power of representation and I tend to scrutinise the motives of the people who are designing and implementing representations.


You are certainly onto things in what you are saying.

Like nearly everyone else, I came into Manson via Bugliosi and Helter Skelter. However, I was able to see through a lot of the bullshit and embellishments. You know things are getting deep when the prosecuting attorney accuses the defendant of stopping his watch. Also, it must be remembered that Manson was found to be mentally competent of defending himself, however that was later denied to him. He also wanted to testify (almost unheard of from a guilty defendant). He was allowed to do so, however, the jury was not permitted to listen because Bugliosi was afraid that Manson would sway the jury. As though that isn't what ANY lawyer does!

Likewise, they never cease in dragging the old Man up every now and again. During his recent illness and hospitalization folks were up in arms that he was "out" of prison and a brand new generation learned to be gleeful of his impending death saying that it was "too nice" etc, out of justice (more honestly called revenge) for people that they don't even know and have never even heard of. All that they know is that he "killed people" because their television and newsfeeds tell them so. I have often wondered who will take his place societies scapegoat when his time really does come.

 Quote:
The only representation which I think educates the audience to some extent about Manson’s worldview is Schreck’s film Charles Manson Superstar.

But there is something more profound as far as I’m concerned in Schreck’s film - Manson shows himself to be very aware of the way he is perceived and constructed or represented as an image or an Other.


It is also the only documentary that isn't slanted negatively about Manson. I would say that there are other bits and pieces. But mainly it is through word of mouth of people that know him and that is truly around the world. For instance, one person that I know who has visited Manson numerous times told me that the first time that he ever met Manson he said that he didn't even know who Charles Manson was. That he was just an old hobo going down the road. Some people take that as gibberish. It makes perfect sense to me. The media created Charles Manson and that creation has little to do with the Man. Having said that, I really wish that Nikolas Schreck's book, “The Manson File: Myth and Reality of an Outlaw Shaman”, would be released in the United States. There are some interviews with Nikolas Schreck about it. I have a feeling that when all is said and done that it will be the definitive book of Charles Manson and the events of 1969.

 Quote:
Do you recall the way he mimics faces - rapidly changes his facial gestures so he is smiling one moment, or scowling the next, or looking bored the next, and then adopts a crazy mask after that? You can only ever access him as an ultimately limited series of shifting changing appearances, gestures, emoticons, or semiotic signs – you just represent him, according to your own needs and what others have convinced you he is. You never really get to him, and he often says: “I am only what you put into me.”


Very true.

I don't know if you are aware of it or not but ABC put out a "new" special on Manson I am wanting to say around last month. It centers on a 1993 interview that Dianne Sawyer did for the premier episode of Turning Point. They may as well of called it Charles Manson: The Same Old Lies, but they had a nicer sounding title for it. What is interesting though is that now that Bugliosi is dead, Helter Skelter as a motive is nearly a footnote. The "new" spin is Charles Manson disgruntled rock star. Which, again is a bunch of bullshit.

I was skeptical about why it was even coming out (could ABC's ratings be that bad?) My guess is that it was because the following video surfaced on youtube. It is the outtakes of that interview that they did not air. Some of the things that it shows (without spoiling it) is Dianne Sawyer wanting her picture taken with him and a guard thanking him telling him that he had been real nice. I think that the "new" special was done entirely for ABC to do some damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLx42U04ag

 Quote:
Sure Manson talks about his naive dreams around ATWA,


If you really consider it, they are not really that naive when you think about how that there are quite a few realities that ATWA claimed that are now largely accepted as fact by most of the go green movements. It has come more into awareness now. He also has people that are continuing ATWA quite nicely.

Very good post.

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.04 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 43 queries. Zlib compression disabled.