Anybody on the street
Has murder in his eyes
You feel no pain
And you’re younger than you realize
Only a fool would say that
Only a fool-Steely Dan-Only a Fool would Say that.
I suppose many were horrified back when I had an FB account, to find that I proposed that Charles Bloody Manson was, in fact, the Enlightened being he claimed to be; that he merely “woke up on the wrong side of the bed”, metaphorically speaking.
I think I saw the second of Geraldo Rivera’s Manson interviews, and naively thought Manson was the scariest human I’d ever seen, and with the satanic musings and the swastika tattoo, I only ask the content beholders pardon. I was about 14 and didn’t know what probably every boomer who’d been there (that ’90s commercial was intentional communist propaganda; not a joke, much less an honest assessment [if you remember the ’60s you weren’t there]), and probably a few stoners of my own generation, knew; namely that if you look up sell-out piece of sh*t in the urban dictionary, it says “see Geraldo Rivera”.
I say “sell out piece of sh*t rather than merely piece of sh*t, as apparently he was once decent enough, and Lennon mentions (on the album I’ll soon get to) him as being important in getting things together so that the concert that led to, and maybe the album itself, Live in New York, could happen (mentions it on 1 of the recordings of the album).
Thing is, I’m, to say the least, not quite ready to back off from that “enlitenment position”, but I do think it time I clarified. 1st off; I was shocked myself. I’d thumbed through the infamous Helter-Skelter book, being unable to find any evidence by the author (whom I believe, either was the prosecutor, or intimately [not using sexual sense of the term] related to same) that the theory of motivation that gave the book its title had ANY arguments; but I got to beholding actual Manson interviews, and then it was too late. I KNEW.
Depending how important that that motive was to the case I think we’ve a real problem here, folks, and Manson has always denied, not only the book title giving specifics, but even the more general argument that The Family was a hippie cult. The Families, were a part of hippie jargon, is my understanding, and the Manson Family would have therefore, of course, been used to speak of the particular “Family” being discussed, but that’s about the extent of it.
So, what I think happened, was, Charlie was approximately or exactly, the lowest rung on the consciousness movements ladder. The problem children had their attention drawn to Charlie, and they often did hit it off right away. In the aquarian conspiracy, even in its early days, policy was standard Anti-nark, “I don’t believe I know that person”, and we will disavow any knowledge, always being standard policy.
So thought, it was often perfectly natural for upper-class hippies to natter, at the naturally annoying qualities of lower-class ones, including especially, their insistence on using non-approved psycho-active substances, such as amphetamine-like drugs, and opiates (read “meth”, and “junk”, if you prefer), it was also deemed that disavowing knowledge of anyone you could was deemed most effective policy.
The position that the psychedelic hippies were the real deal, not the commie ones (Frisco vs. Berkly?) was not the narrative the media chose to take, when reviewing the movement especially in the ’90s, for reasons, that in the light of future events may not suck, after-all, but, there is a powerful argument to be made for the antithesis.
Psychedelics don’t need no preexisting ideology to be revolutionary, but they got one whether they liked it or not, and I, for one wish, we’d a chance to see more of the zany solutions the psychedelics-as-such side (and crowd-contrasting with the commie leftists among the counterculture) would have come up with.
The “Manson Family” was denied the right to testify, and no retrial or appeal ever amended that, and that means that typical American graft compromises were on the table whenever any of them went up for parole review.
WHAT I THINK MANSON DID:
Hippie Chicks, as they were called, were notoriously earthy, but also, often much more submissive than females in our society ever have been, since. Manson played the part of trickster Daddy guru, because they were a) trying to survive in a hippie lifestyle while not coming from money, and therefore having to deal with all manner of low-lifes, something with which Manson, and some other male members of his group had plentiful experience, a lifetime’s worth, at least in the case of Charlie.
I think Charlie got his females in touch with their own hate, but that this was not “brainwashing”, but something quite standard at the time. This was the decade of encounter groups, the Process Church of the Final Judgement, and the beginning of Levey’s Church of Satan; and it was a technique that tended to give a catharsis that felt like an initiation into a new way to live life; exactly what the Hippies were looking for, and seemingly unfortunately, truly life changing in this groups case. If you get to where you can see what hippies would have to be to something real and part of something eternal, your choices get limited. This is the sort of thing that the permanent irreversible change in character discussed by the I -Ching as well as other forms of spirituality should be talking…or something with this level of gravitas, anyway (people think real spiritual growth look like the tarots Sun card, when in fact it looks like The Tower).
Hoping you’ve guessed where I’m going with this. Not sure about the other murders, but I bet there was a session where at least one, maybe many of the girls figured out that with the abuse and other bs they’d been through, some chomo director, and his chomo wife actress, was someone they hated, and that they had a chance to change the world the way it gets really changed here on the planet of the apes!
WHO I THINK MANSON WAS:
Exactly who he seems to be; exactly who you fear he is! Exactly who he claimed to be (actually; I’ll note at least one bit that seems to me an exception here in a bit!) One of the earths, still too few, minorly enlightened beings, who reacted in the exact way an Illuminatus would to being “sorry Charlied” his whole damned life; i.e., remarkably sanely under the sad circumstances.
Makes sense to me. He’d done his TRs when he was in Scientology. He was there comfortably and willing to communicate as a result (He was once asked by an interviewer while in Prison, the nature of his power, he replied ”It’s because everything I do [suddenly jumps up] …is right now!”. Very TR0!).
I believe him when he claimed he could talk to any other enlightened person alive (and maybe some who were dead). I suspect that those who were at about his level didn’t have much to say to him besides “ya done messed up, Chuck!”, and that those above him didn’t have much to say besides “you know what you signed up for this time!”, but to his credit, I suspect (possibly with a little bit of preliminary natter), his reply to the latter, was probably “yeah…I know!”.
ONE THING THAT FRUSTRATES MY ASSESSMENT:
The one thing that makes me wonder whether I’ve got any of this right, at all, is the frequent claim by Manson, that he wasn’t even a hippie, but a Beatnik, when a) I’m pretty sure that was a media stereotype, not a real thing at all, but then I’d definitely guess there were many that decided to follow that stereotype, which Manson claimed, essentially, to have been, with a goatee and a genuine pair of bongos.
Anybody ever seen a picture of Manson with that kinda get-up, however? I haven’t; and it just comes off as pretty ingenuine to me, even though he, rightly notes, that, generationally, that is more naturally his, but the beat literary movement would have rejected him without a blink.
“Thought I’d something more to say”-Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
So the above is my full essay. I offer Chat GPT’s critique and revision. I think my version is at least 3 times as good as chat gpt’s counterproposal essay, for many reasons:
You
I’d like your critique of an essay I just wroteChatGPT
ChatGPT
Of course! I’d be happy to help. Please provide the essay, and let me know if there are specific areas or aspects you’d like me to focus on in my critique.
You
(I then display the above essay)
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Your essay is a unique exploration of Charles Manson, his followers, and the cultural context of the 1960s counterculture. Here are some thoughts and suggestions:
- Clarity and Structure:
- Your essay covers a range of topics, from Manson’s supposed enlightenment to the nature of the hippie movement. Consider organizing your ideas more clearly, possibly by breaking down the essay into distinct sections.
- Ensure that the progression of your thoughts is smooth and logical, helping the reader follow your argument easily.
- Thesis Statement:
- Clearly state your main thesis or argument early in the essay. This will provide readers with a roadmap for understanding your perspective on Manson and related issues.
- Evidence and Sources:
- Support your claims with specific evidence or examples. When discussing Manson’s supposed enlightenment, provide concrete instances or statements made by Manson to substantiate your point.
- Mention specific sources or references that you consulted, especially when discussing Manson’s interviews or cultural movements.
- Language and Tone:
- Be mindful of your language and tone. While a conversational style can be engaging, ensure that it maintains a level of formality suitable for an essay. Avoid using strong language that might detract from your arguments.
- Thorough Examination:
- Delve deeper into certain aspects, such as Manson’s denial of being a hippie and identifying as a beatnik. Provide more context or analysis to support your perspective on this issue.
- Conclusion:
- Summarize your main points and restate your thesis in the conclusion. Offer some final thoughts or reflections on the significance of Manson and his place in the counterculture of the 1960s.
- Edit for Clarity:
- Some sentences are quite complex and may benefit from simplification. Ensure that each sentence contributes to the overall clarity of your message.
Remember, these are suggestions, and you have the creative freedom to structure your essay in a way that aligns with your vision for the piece. Feel free to revise and expand on specific points based on your intended audience and purpose.
You
I appreciate this, and I’d like to see the revised edition by you (I suspect you could do several) that I’d feel least compromises “my thunder”.ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here’s a revised version that aims to maintain the essence of your original while incorporating some of the suggestions:
In the words of Steely Dan, “Anybody on the street has murder in his eyes.” This sentiment seems particularly relevant when reflecting on the infamous figure of Charles Manson and the dark chapters of the 1960s counterculture.
During my teenage years, I stumbled upon Geraldo Rivera’s Manson interviews, naively absorbing the media’s portrayal of Manson as a terrifying figure. Little did I know that media narratives, especially those of the ’90s, often carried their own biases.
Upon closer examination, Manson’s alleged role in the Helter-Skelter motive, as depicted in the book of the same name, appeared shaky. Manson consistently denied being part of a hippie cult, emphasizing the term “The Family” as a mere linguistic convention rather than an ideological allegiance.
In my evolving perspective, Manson emerges as the lowest rung on the consciousness movement’s ladder. The counterculture’s upper echelons, often dismissive of the lower-class counterparts, engaged in a policy of disavowing knowledge—a practice that proved convenient when distancing themselves from unconventional substances and lifestyles.
Psychedelics, a driving force behind the counterculture, had the potential for revolutionary change. However, the media narrative, leaning toward the communist leftists, overshadowed the psychedelic-as-such movement. The Manson Family’s denial of the right to testify further muddled the truth, leaving room for typical American graft compromises during parole reviews.
In attempting to decipher Manson’s actions, I propose that he played the role of a trickster Daddy guru to the so-called “Hippie Chicks.” This wasn’t brainwashing but a technique prevalent in the ’60s, marked by encounter groups and spiritual awakenings. Manson facilitated a catharsis, a gateway to a new way of life that unfortunately turned tragically life-changing.
Who was Manson, then? Perhaps exactly who he claimed to be—an Earth’s minorly enlightened being responding remarkably sanely to a lifetime of being “sorry Charlied.” His claimed ability to communicate with other enlightened individuals adds a layer of complexity, suggesting a connection beyond the mundane.
One aspect that perplexes my assessment is Manson’s insistence on being a Beatnik rather than a hippie. While media stereotypes may have influenced this distinction, Manson’s alleged adherence to Beatnik aesthetics lacks photographic evidence. This raises questions about the authenticity of his claims.
In conclusion, Manson remains an enigmatic figure, reflecting the tumultuous era he emerged from. His story intertwines with the broader tapestry of the counterculture, leaving us to grapple with the complexities of truth, perception, and the consequences of a bygone era.
Tad's Blog 