The Enlightenment of Charles Manson

I was listening  to the clip Matt Staggs posted on here the other day of Alan Watts expounding on the Buddhist concept of “No Self” so I clicked on it in YouTube to see what else came up, and there I found this little clip of Charles Manson answering the question of “Who are you?”

After listening to Watts, Manson’s answer struck me as profound. “I am nobody”, was his answer, basically. It struck me that Manson is a Zen Master.

I had seen other Manson interviews. He completely dominates all his interviewers, running circles around them. Interviewers always come at Manson in a hostile way, seeking to pass judgement and not listen at all. Manson takes these as an opportunity for dharmic battle, and he destroys. He is a master. It seemed to me that Manson was answering all of the questions in little Koans, dropping gems of wisdom completely missed by his interviewer.

I particularly like the one with Geraldo Rivera. Rivera Seemed to think he was going to shame Manson and get him to cry tears of contrition and apologize to the American people or some ridiculous thing, or at least those are the wheels I saw turning in Rivera’s well -oiffed head. He didn’t have a chance: Manson completely owned him. No amount of creative editing in the world could give a contrary impression.

I clicked on some more links and discovered an interview of Manson being interviewed by Charlie Rose, one I hadn’t seen before. Not surprisingly my impression of Charlie Rose was that of a more dignified, serious journalist, but he gets dominated as well. Its interesting that these men both seem to want to set out to shame Manson. They come at him from the perspective of representing the establishment and all that is good. In that sense it’s not a normal interview in that they’re not asking probing questions to get Manson  to open up and share about themselves.

I am struck by how confidently Manson, who appears to be just over 5 feet tall, walks into the room in comparison to the three enormous correctional officers who accompany him, all ow home  appear to be slightly nervous to be on TV. Apparently he had just come out of solitary confinement and apologizes for being a little out of it. If Manson was out of sorts at the start of the interview, within 30 seconds he appears to be perfectly at ease and in complete control. It is Charlie Rose who appears stiff and awkward, and once the interview is underway Manson immediately starts dropping gems!

Rose: Do you have friends you can talk to?

Manson: I am friend to everything I see, everything I know, everything I feel

Rose seems to establish early on a pattern of steering the conversation continually from the interesting to the banal:

Rose: “what about other inmates?”

Manson: “I am brother in these hallways for 40 years. With no snitching on my jacket, no asking for nobody to protect me, and walking on my own two feet.”

This statement is a theme that Manson revisits later in the interview. Rose asks him about his fan mail and then Manson opens up about “the Rainbow”: His explanation of what the spiritual aspect of the sixties was about and where it originated, using an analogy of a tree growing up from a seed underneath the ground and how a similar process can occur in the mind.

Rose immediately cuts him off, asking him to instead  explain why he makes little origami scorpions. Rose seems to think most people would consider scorpions creepy and wants to keep the conversation focused on lurid spectacle, but Manson once again steers the conversation back again back to the spiritual dimension, talking about shamanism and the difference between what Manson calls “spiritualism” and organized religion.

Rose continues to attempt to paint a preconceived picture of Manson, who refuses to play along and answers in metaphors and analogies. Rose considers these as an attempt at obfuscation, in the process completely missing the profundity Manson is offering him. Rose asks Mansonabout his mother and father, feigning pity that Manson never knew his father. Manson asserts that he does know his own father, but that he considers his  father to be every man (everyman?) and that his mother is the ice box, meaning the penitentiary. When Rose scoffs, Manson elaborates that the generation of men returning from WWII raised the generation of boys living in the penitentiary. Manson then recounts one of his earliest memories of visiting his mother in prison.

When Rose asks if he has any happy memories, Manson once again lays it for for him, Bodhisattva style:

Manson: I…I don’t have that.

Rose: You don’t have that?”

Manson: I don’t have that yin and yang that you people do.

Rose: Is that ying yang?” (rose seems to take “ying yang” as a phrase connoting nonsense)

Manson: yeah, in other words, you can’t make me unhappy

Rose: Are there sad memories, though, growing up?

Manson: I don’t have all that. (smiling)

Rose: You do have it. You are an individual; You have an experience. You are one human being with experience.

Manson raises his eye brows back in forth quizzically but with good humor, amused at Rose’s attempt to put words in his mouth, responding:

Manson: When you leave go get a big rock and set it on the table.

Rose: Yeah?

Manson: I am that big rock on the table.

This was a pretty straight-forward Zen object lesson. Was it completely lost on Rose?

Manson expounds on non-attachment, explaining that he was merely “pass(ing) through” the scene at Haight and Ashbury street. Rose asks why these young hippies were drawn to him, and Manson responds that he stands on his own two feet. He says that a the time he didn’t realize how rare that was and how weak most other people are. He relates the killings to a holy war, but one that he wanted no part of.

At one point in the interview he explains love as the ground of being and the role Manson plays as establishment scapegoat:

Manson: Everything is love, there’s nothing that isn’t love, even the confusion is love in one form or another, it’s misguided. Love is a word to supplement for God. I would rather use the word intelligence. If you’re going to use the word love, use the word intelligence because love is misunderstood in so many different ways and fashions.

Rose: Do you need to be loved?

Manson: Loved… I am loved, I am love

Rose: By whom? Are you loved?

Manson: I am love

Rose: Are you loved?

Manson: All the way and around the world with it, didn’t you see it? Two hundred and fifteen times taking it in the fire with it man

Rose: Meaning what

Manson: Me? Meaning I’m taking up all the slack for you assholes. I’m carrying you around. Nixon. I still got you… Reagan, hey Ronny! … I’m intertwined in your very soul man.

Rose, being firmly on the side of established authority(demiurge?), isn’t going to go along with Manson’s idea of himself as a scapegoat., instead continuing to paint a picture of Manson as psychopath/criminal/schizophrenic. He couches his words in the implication that others see him that way:

Rose: … and what do you say of those people who say ‘monster’?

Manson: What you see is what you get. Man, they have to live with it. I don’t. You have to live with your judgement. I live with mine. (Smiling)

Rose: You don’t think of yourself…

Manson: That is right. I don’t think of myself.

Rose continues to paint the picture of how “most people” see Manson:

Manson: I don’t think you guys have seen me.

Rose: No? What don’t we understand?

Manson: You don’t understand yourselves.

Rose: No but what don’t we understand about you? Granted we don’t understand ourselves, but what don’t we understand about you?

Manson: Just what I said…I am inside of you man. I live inside of you. I am inside every one of you.

They go back and forth for a while.

Rose is so invested in making him out to be a monster; that he “ordered the murders” and that he deserves life in prison. He is so invested in this that he misses absolutely everything Manson is saying. Rose seems to get that Manson is defending his innocence but catches not much else.

When asked if he will ever get out of prison, Manson ends the interview with:

Manson: Prison? I left prison in ’67. I got out of jail.

 Rose: Yeah, but you are back.

Manson: Can’t you see that I am out, man? Can’t you see that I am free?”

Somewhere along the line, Manson found liberation. Rose, captive to his own judgments, a man of the establishment, remains in prison.

, ,

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Fair play, but ease up on the fanboy-dom long enough to consider the situation here:

    Buddhist koans challenge conventional wisdom in order to expand our insight into the human condition.

    Sociopaths do it to avoid responsibility and–maybe more importantly–establish Alphamale dominance over others by confounding them with bullsh*t.

    Manson is a bullsh*tter who’d literally tear his own followers to shreds given a chance. Not an Ascended Master.

    • Ted Heistman

      I’m not a fan boy. Can psychopaths be enlightened? Why or why not?

      • echar

        I have a feeling Christopher Hyatt had some really interesting things to say about psychopaths, considering he wrote the Psychopath’s Bible. Unfortunately I have not read enough of his work to have a reference.

        However my mind is suggesting that the premise of the above listed book is that the freedom the psychopaths experience through their perspectives can be enlightening. I could be off on that.

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          I read that book. Very Thought provoking. I think the subtitle is key “for the extreme individual”

      • mannyfurious

        No, and I can’t really answer that question on a message board post, if at all. I will say that it’s partially because enlightenment, while not the cure-all many people wish it to be (after enlightenment, one still has bills to pay, difficult people to deal with, death to deal with, illness, etc.), produces a sudden influx of “understanding.” Inherent in that understanding is a realization of why torturing, maiming and killing people is not worthwhile. Inherent in that understanding is a realization of why, even if it often seems fucked up, the illusory “I” has a “place” in the universe and a, for lack of a better term, “responsibility” to not be violently destructive the culture/society “one” find’s “one’s self” in.

        It’s the old, “Being IN the world, but not OF it.”

        It’s really the flood of what is often called “compassion.” Understanding that my personal ideals, plans, desires, fetishes, fantasies, imaginings, et. al. are not real and therefore are not worth imposing on others. My idea of what reality should “be like” is just that, an idea. It is no more right or wrong than anybody else’s.

        In a true enlightenment, the illusion of the ego dissipates, but never entirely disappears. Instead, it’s a “seeing through.” The illusion becomes transparent. I think, in Manson’s case, his illusory ego is running amok. The illusion has taken over. And the things he says aren’t sincere. They’re are just ways for him to fuck with others and make himself feel superior.

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          I dunno man. I have studdied Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche pretty extensively and a lot of sincere people think he was the real deal. he strikes me as a psychopath, too. If Manson is a total con artist (and nothing beyond that) he sure seems to understand the concepts, and it was lost on Charlie Rose.

          Its almost like he wasn’t really talking to him. Could the Universe speak through Charles Manson?

          I think he says some pretty deep shit here. He seems to understand psychological projection too, like a boss.

          • mannyfurious

            What you read as an understanding of “psychological projection,” I read as the typical ramblings of a narcissistic psychopath. He believes he’s superior to everyone else and that gives him the right to behave how he wants to behave. He seems like he understands certain concepts because I’m sure he’s read plenty of books on the topic and, because he’s a psychopath, thinks all those books are referring to him.

            I really don’t think it’s too difficult to INTELLECTUALLY understand some of these ideas. I have a friend who for two years had managed to convince himself that he was enlightened. I myself am not enlightened, but even I could see that he wasn’t. But he was all haughty about it. Then, a couple of months ago he fell into a deep depression and said he had “lost his zen.” But you can’t lose what you never had in the first place, and an expansion of ego (i.e. “haughtiness”) is always the most dependable sign that someone is not “enlightened.”

            You and I have already established that we feel quite differently about who is truly “enlightened” and who isn’t. So I won’t dwell to much longer on any of this. I will say that I see Rinpoche as another person who understood the concepts of enlightenment on an intellectual level, was able to convince himself he was enlightened and was able to convince others of it, as well. I mean, he did seem pretty full of himself, when he shouldn’t have had a “self” to be full of, anyway.

          • echar

            I wonder, can anyone who is alive be enlightened?

          • mannyfurious

            GET IN LINE, ECHAR!!!!

          • echar

            I’ll die when it’s my time.

          • mannyfurious

            How enlightened.

          • echar

            You would feed my ego?

          • mannyfurious

            Only accidentally….

          • echar

            It’s up to me to choose. It was a spiritual joke!

          • mannyfurious

            Only accidentally….

          • Calypso_1

            No

          • echar

            Are you absolutely, 100% money back guaranteed certain?

          • Calypso_1

            I was operating under the premise that one need not even be alive. The transition into realms postmortem, in certain circumstances, might not only present a lack of impediment to the process but instead become requisite for some beings.

          • echar

            You mean our meat bags make it impossible?

          • Calypso_1

            For some that might be the impediment. Though not necessarily.

            Are all spiritual beings enlightened?

            Can a spiritual being become enlightened? What if it needed a body to do so? Or just a breath or a glance? and then the body was superfluous .

            If you are enlightened can you lose it? What if you had to give up your enlightenment in order to become it?

          • echar

            I am no expert on this, however I feel that even thinking of enlightenment sullies the works.

            There’s lots of what if, here.

            We are getting into the realm of archons, seraphim, souls, pleroma, inner sparks, and a plethora of other themes/symbols that ripple out and back.

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            Wintermute.

          • echar

            Theories of memory as holography?

            http://tinyurl.com/c2phnjt

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            Thanks for the link. i guess I’ve been thinking in terms of the enlightenment of individuals, not considering the bigger picture.

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            Wintermute.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            “You and I have already established that we feel quite differently about who is truly “enlightened” and who isn’t.”

            We did?

          • mannyfurious

            Well, I did, I suppose. We had that discussion back when disinfo posted the article about the “most spiritual people in the world” or something. You and I couldn’t agree on who was enlightened and who wasn’t. (e.g. Mr. Tolle and several others.) So I guess I’m just assuming you and I have a somewhat different perspectives on this topic. But I assume a lot and I mostly just make an ass out of myself, so this would be nothing new….

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            well, its a difficult thing to speculate about.

            as far as the post here, I mean the obvious answer her is that Manson is a con-artist and fucking with Charlie Rose, just like the fucked with Geraldo, but he says some really interesting things. I saw Manson pretty much the way you do before.

            But I dunno. If you sort of “decode” what Manson says through the doctrine of “no self” its pretty fucking trippy.

        • Gordon

          In true enlightenment, the ego DOES disappear, as does any conception of the self.

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            So ego death = enlightenment?

            I’ve experienced ego death before now, it wasn’t pleasant in the slightest for me. I’m kinda with mannyfurious on this one, the ego doesn’t die it merely assumes a new perspective. I’m not really sure where the ‘false’ ego comes in. I’ve had experiences where I have transformed into an insectoid, completely predatorial creature devoid of empathy and felt an unbelievable liberation from it, entirely self contained, but I consider both the lion and the insect equally valuable.

          • mannyfurious

            “Ego-death” has been recorded in many schizophrenics as well. It doesn’t come across as a good experience to have.

            Other than some experiences I myself have had, I feel that the ego doesn’t totally disappear because if you read the works of some spiritually mature people, they always seem to realize that they are still “Chuang Tzu” or “Lin-chi” or “Eckhart” or “Basho” to some extant.

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            Wow you know I’d completely forgotton. Was refreshing my memory on wiki and read the words of Tolle, remembered the indescribable aftermath. I haven’t been back to the void in the same way since then, that time caught me offguard. How do I always manage to forget stuff like this?

            I wonder, if I were to approach it mindfully now with a warrior’s stance what would happen.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            Let me know how it turns out. Seriously.

          • http://iuwus.deviantart.com/ Threedinium

            Ok.

          • mannyfurious

            “Ego-death” has been recorded in many schizophrenics as well. It doesn’t come across as a good experience to have.

            Other than some experiences I myself have had, I feel that the ego doesn’t totally disappear because if you read the works of some spiritually mature people, they always seem to realize that they are still “Chuang Tzu” or “Lin-chi” or “Eckhart” or “Basho” to some extant.

        • Gordon

          In true enlightenment, the ego DOES disappear, as does any conception of the self.

        • Frank_Black

          I am ignoring the nagging desire to quote Hassan I Sabbah right about now.

          • mannyfurious

            Well, either blow me or not. But don’t tease me like that….

      • Calypso_1

        Yes

    • Mark

      Liam, A wise man once said a follower is simply an ***hole looking for a man to attach its self to. Anyone who wants to be a follower of an “ascended master” deserves what they get. And that, my friend, may be the main takeaway here.

    • Heesus

      I don’t want to start some endless debate here, but I recommend doing
      some actual serious investigation on this case beyond the Helter Skelter
      -nonsense. You’ll find that there were no followers, and that the
      Tate-Labianca murders had quite little to do with Manson, he certainly
      did not order them. That was basically drug dealers killing each other,
      if we wanna cut some corners. Manson is not a nice guy, he’s a criminal.
      But the amount of bullshit spun about him and these murders is
      astonishing. And I don’t believe his spiritualism or philosophy is any
      more bullshit than anyone else’s. Pardon any mispelling on this reply.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        Get ready to hear about this guys Step Aunt and all the money she makes.

        • Daapa

          No. that was actually me trying to register with the damn disgus thing and it wouldn’t go through, so I created another account. Shit.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            OH OK. Spambots do that sometimes, copy a comment and then edit it later.

          • Daapa

            Feverish nightmares of that fucking comment popping up everywhere. And that account is dead and gone so I can’t delete it either :). The luddite that I am. Unless admin takes it down.

    • Daapa

      I don’t want to start some endless debate here, but I recommend doing
      some actual serious investigation on this case beyond the Helter Skelter
      -nonsense. You’ll find that there were no followers, and that the
      Tate-Labianca murders had quite little to do with Manson, he certainly
      did not order them. That was basically drug dealers killing each other,
      if we wanna cut some corners. Manson is not a nice guy, he’s a criminal.
      But the amount of bullshit spun about him and these murders is
      astonishing. And I don’t believe his spiritualism or philosophy is any
      more bullshit than anyone else’s. Pardon any mispelling on this reply.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        That’s actually my impression. I think “I am nobody. I am just a bum on a boxcar with a jug of wine and a strait razor if you get too close” is an accurate self assessment.

        • Daapa

          Well this posted with a lag, and as you well know, Ted. I already send this to you. But now my original post appears here, hours later :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTo4HQeiZg

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            Listening to it now. Manson not playing a character…Just telling it straight.

          • Daapa

            Yes. A very different Manson from the “mad killer” portrayed elsewhere. Not necessarily a nice guy, but no “mass murdering dog” either.

          • Frank_Black

            Ah Vacaville, another sign that Manson was yet again another in a long line of bait stooges for an MK type program. Vacaville has associations with SLA, Jim Jone’s people, and some of the vice officers (earlier and later associated with Vacaville and their outreach programs to curb adolescent and youth violence) prominent in the Haight Ashbury scene around the time that Manson, The Process and several other notorious influences on the SO-CAL under ground crime/counter culture scene were hanging around.

          • Daapa

            My knowledge is limited to that Manson was one of the prisoners in Vacaville who got force-fed medication and used as a guinea pig.

          • echar

            The process is another interesting scene.

        • Calypso_1

          That is one of the most fascinating statements he’s ever made.
          His tone of voice is more ‘genuine’ than many of his more ‘pushed’ statements.

      • echar

        because of my morbid curiosity, I would like it very much if you would offer some reference.

        • Daapa

          Well, first of all, you have to understand, I’ve been interested in this case for over a decade. I’ve read every court document and police report that is available. That’s a lot of information on it’s own. For those who are interested, there is a book you might wanna start with called The Manson file: Myth and reality of an outlaw shaman by Nikolas Schreck. It’s almost a thousand pages and I have to take my hat off. He’s done more research than porbably anyone else. What he concludes (and what those who look in to this case will fnd) is that the murders happened because Tex Watson was suppose to do a drug deal with Jay Siebring and Frykoiwski. Things went wrong, people got killed. The original police investigation supports that theory. Leno Labianca was under FBI surveillance cause he was connected to the Mafia. That’s a documented fact. His wife Rosemary was also a drug dealer, to whom Watson and Manson and all these people were also connected to. All these people were connected to each other. It was not random killings. And if Bugliosi had followed that original investigation he could have locked all these guys, including Manson, in prison. So why the need for the ellaborate Helter Skelter scenario, that really doesn’t even make sense? For one Manson has often suggested that Bugliosi was connected to the Mafia, as was Manson himself. There’s a lot more involved and I can go on about the trial and why it got fucked up if you want, but this can be researched by anyone with a library card.

          • echar

            I am open to this, but why did they make the crime scene so “witchy”? To send a message, mafia style? You don’t have to answer that. I appreciate you listing the books.

          • Daapa

            That was a combination of framing other people and a desperate last minute attempt of trying to get Beausoleil out of prison. They did two trips to the Tate house that night.

          • echar
          • Daapa

            Yeah, they scratch the surface on this interview and I would definitely recommend it. Although the interviewer is doing that horrible local radio -voice.

          • Daapa

            Yeah, they scratch the surface on this interview and I would definitely recommend it. Although the interviewer is doing that horrible local radio -voice.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            This Schrek Guy was really impressed with the Charlie Rose interview as well. I am listening to him now.

          • Eric_D_Read

            That Schrek guy is quite the interesting character in his own right.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            Yeah, his wife too. He is in the thick of a lot of interesting shit.

          • echar

            I can tell by the interview he gave that he is an interesting person.

          • Conzeit

            Honestly all the info stemming from this article has been quite a treat. Schreck mentions the aspect he thinks is most important to his book is the spiritual element, anybdoy got a clue to what part of occult culture that might be related?

          • echar

            I read somewhere that at one time Manson was hanging around Scientology for a bit, and that Hubbard hung around Jack Parsons before ripping him off and taking his girlfriend. Parsons was the head of the American O.T.O before his death.

          • echar
          • echar

            Oh yes, now I understand who his wife is.

          • Daapa

            I forgot about that. I think they are buddhists now or something.

          • echar

            I am listening to the above show now. I appreciate Nikolas Schreck’s approach.

          • Daapa

            I agree. He’s not sensationalizing the subject. And I’m glad you’re giving this side of the story at least a chance. No matter what conclusion you may arrive at. Most people get the same knee-jerk reaction and start yelling insults. Which is why I was apprehensive about bringing it up.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            is it just me, or is this guy seem like John Malkovitch?

          • echar

            There may be a superficial similarity.

          • echar

            Thank you for sharing. I need to get this book.

          • echar

            I am listening to the above show now. I appreciate Nikolas Schreck’s approach.

          • Daapa

            I forgot about that. I think they are buddhists now or something.

          • echar

            Oh yes, now I understand who his wife is.

          • echar

            I am open to this, but why did they make the crime scene so “witchy”? To send a message, mafia style? You don’t have to answer that. I appreciate you listing the books.

          • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

            Charles Manson was a hugely charismatic but highly incompetent petty criminal who took WAY too much acid, and that’s basically why the murders happened, as far as I’m concerned. Prior to getting out in the late 60s, he couldn’t stay out of jail long enough to change his shirt. The Manson Family were in absolute fucking la-la land from drugs by 69 – they were doing things that only make sense in the acid fried mindset they were in at the time. What evidence exists that Tex Watson was involved with either Sebring or Frykowski? What evidence exists that Rosemary Bianca was a drug dealer? If there was no substance whatever in the Helter Skelter scenario, why was it independently corroborated by so many witnesses?

          • Guest

            A lot of the people who testified eather got their cases dropped, or were hoping to. Linda Kasabian for one got a possible murder charge dropped by testifying. Would you tell some tales for that kind of brake? The Straight Satan members who testified against Manson got immunity for their charges. Manson didn’t get the chance to call any witnesses. And when it was time for closing arguments, Bugliosi insisted that the jury would be removed from the courtroom because his “hypnotic powers” might convince that he’s innocent. And the judge agreed. Does that sound like fair trial to you? Before the trial Manson was given a psychiatric evaluation, which found him very sane and intelligent and competent to defend himself. Right that was taken away from him. Manson did drive them up to the Labiancas, because he wanted to get the money that was owed to him. I doubt they were there to have tea. Though the police report suggests that the murderers at the Tate house were offered drinks. Manson was not present at the Tate house nor did he know about the murders until later when he helped them clean up the crime scene. I can tell from your tone that this is the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about earlier. As for evidence I’ll just refer you to the court documents and police reports, or Schrecks book. Or you can start with the interview with Schreck that Echar posted here.

          • Daapa

            Not again. I deleted this one.

          • echar

            It sticks around even if you delete it.

          • Frank_Black

            Manson got out of jail a surprising amount of time when he was getting popped all the time for turning out minors in LA before his whole family ordeal, very suspicious. I still vote he was a clever patsy in a domestic Gladio style cult that the CIA seems to love so much. Also Helter Skelter had it’s last chapter and many sections edited again after the first printing run to remove some unfortunate references to the Process, or so the story goes. The book was edited for sure, but the exact reasons why were not explained as far as I know

          • HCE

            Just suggest folks check out the books about Manson by Ed Sanders and Adam Gorightly. That will answer 90% of most folks questions.

        • Daapa

          Well, first of all, you have to understand, I’ve been interested in this case for over a decade. I’ve read every court document and police report that is available. That’s a lot of information on it’s own. For those who are interested, there is a book you might wanna start with called The Manson file: Myth and reality of an outlaw shaman by Nikolas Schreck. It’s almost a thousand pages and I have to take my hat off. He’s done more research than porbably anyone else. What he concludes (and what those who look in to this case will fnd) is that the murders happened because Tex Watson was suppose to do a drug deal with Jay Siebring and Frykoiwski. Things went wrong, people got killed. The original police investigation supports that theory. Leno Labianca was under FBI surveillance cause he was connected to the Mafia. That’s a documented fact. His wife Rosemary was also a drug dealer, to whom Watson and Manson and all these people were also connected to. All these people were connected to each other. It was not random killings. And if Bugliosi had followed that original investigation he could have locked all these guys, including Manson, in prison. So why the need for the ellaborate Helter Skelter scenario, that really doesn’t even make sense? For one Manson has often suggested that Bugliosi was connected to the Mafia, as was Manson himself. There’s a lot more involved and I can go on about the trial and why it got fucked up if you want, but this can be researched by anyone with a library card.

      • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

        Manson didn’t order the Tate-Labianca murders? Why did he drive the murderers to the house, tie up the victims, and then send the killers into the house, to have fucking tea with them?

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          To help cover it up.

        • Daapa

          A lot of the people who testified eather got their cases dropped, or were hoping to. Linda Kasabian for one got a possible murder charge dropped by testifying. Would you tell some tales for that kind of brake? The Straight Satan members who testified against Manson got immunity for their charges. Manson didn’t get the chance to call any witnesses. And when it was time for closing arguments, Bugliosi insisted that the jury would be removed from the courtroom because Mansons “hypnotic powers” might convince them that he’s innocent. And the judge agreed. Does that sound like fair trial to you? Before the trial Manson was given a psychiatric evaluation, which found him very sane and intelligent and competent to defend himself. Right that was taken away from him. Manson did drive them up to the Labiancas, because he wanted to get the money that was owed to him. I doubt they were there to have tea. Though the police report suggests that the murderers at the Tate house were offered drinks. Manson was not present at the Tate house nor did he know about the murders until later when he helped them clean up the crime scene. I can tell from your tone that this is the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about earlier. As for evidence I’ll just refer you to the court documents and police reports, or Schrecks book. Or you can start with the interview with Schreck that Echar posted here.

          • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

            What evidence is there that Manson was owed money by the Labianca’s? Knowing what had happened the previous night, are you honestly suggesting that Manson would have sent Tex Watson into a house where people were tied up without knowing full well that they were going to be murdered? If all the witnesses against Manson were lying to beat raps, why is it that Susan Atkins spilled the same story to two convicts in prison before the trial had even started? Manson wasn’t allowed to represent himself in court because he kept making farcical motions and behaving in a manner completely unrelated to jurisprudence as it is conducted on planet earth. They had to stop him from representing himself. The jury were not, to the best of my knowledge, prevented from hearing the closing arguments; that would be unprecedented. Manson’s defense were not prevented from calling witnesses. Don’t you think that the fact that Schreck calls Manson a shaman in the title of his book implies that he might have a pro-Manson bias? Whom precisely did Manson heal?

          • Daapa

            Well Schreck is absolutely pro-Manson. He has never attempted to deny it. But if you read the book, you would know that he is not just expressing an opinion, he’s done some very exhausting investigative journalism. And the shaman title is explained there as well. Manson himself has claimed that when he went to the Beach Boys manager to ask for payment for the songs the band covered on their 20/20 album, the manager refused and threatened to “call new york”. Meaning mafia. So Manson made the same threat right back. After that meeting Manson found out from the managers secretary the number the manager called. It was a Hollywood phone number. This is when Schreck basically asked him “are you saying that was the LaBiancas number”. Manson wouldn’t give a straight answer (the no-snitch law of criminals) but he implied that was the case. So whatever reason, he thought he could get paid by the Labiancas. Rosemary by the way owned the super market the “Manson girls” did their dumpster-diving at. Her daughter dated a Straight Satan -member, and Watson use to live next to that same daughter, called Susan LaBerge. She now attends Watsons parole hearings and insists he’d be let free. Curious. The reason Manson wasn’t allowed to represent himself is because he asked that the D.A. should do his work from a prison cell aswell. This was meant as a “joke” to point out that to put together a decent defense he would need more leeway. The antics started after that right was taken away.He was given a crazy person as a lawyer, who later ended up in a nut house. I forget his name now. He read passages from the bible as a defense strategy. Manson protested this guy throughout the trial. And yes, the jury was removed. Mansons statement was given to them in writing, to prevent those infamous hypnotic powers. And he was not allowed to call any witnesses. Defense never called any. Manson claims he didn’t want the LaBiancas killed, but I guess it dosen’t matter to him personally that much either. Susan Atkins was always batshit crazy, she and Watson couldn’t even get their stories straight with each other. Both of them have told so many different versions of those crimes and the “Family” and so on, it’s hard to keep up with it. And there was something fishy about that confession too, but I’ll have to look it up later. It’s 5.30 AM where I live, and I haven’t slept yet. I might need fresh eyes to continue this :)

          • Calypso_1

            Not all shamans heal.

        • Daapa

          And I hope you appreciate that this case is way too complicated for me to completely explain it here. If you insist, I can try to list some of the many links between the killers and the victims. But would you believe me without doing any studying on your own?

          • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

            I have studied it, and eventually came to different conclusions. However, a couple of the points you make above (” Rosemary by the way owned the super market the “Manson girls” did their
            dumpster-diving at. Her daughter dated a Straight Satan -member, and
            Watson use to live next to that same daughter, called Susan LaBerge”) I was not aware of, and are certainly highly provocative. Might have to dig in again!

      • Frank_Black

        Pretty much what most people who really study the Manson case will tell you I would imagine. I see the same thing with Zodiac, Manson II and there are indications (if Terry Maury is to be believed and we don’t consider him a external handler for Burkowitz, much like Anne Rule may have been for Bundy) that the Sam cult was a front for drug killings as well…or should I say a series of killings designed to hide drug related assassinations or killings. I know it sounds loopy but there are all kinds of drug related ear marks with all those cases. The Night Stalker is another one. I think Programmed to Kill covered Ramirez and this possibility pretty well.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      I had to down vote you for calling me a Fan boy. Fucker!

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Everything is as it appears. Always go with the obvious. That is the path to enlightenment.

  • echar

    I agree he is an interesting person, morbidly. I do find the interviews I have watched fascinating as well. He has noted that the media/the system has made him out to be the boogie man, so clearly he is aware of that. I feel it is in his nihilist interest to undermine that structure. Besides, it’s clearly not too far of stretch to see him as a very “bad” person.

    His music is decent
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5CuM0obap4

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Thanks for turning me onto that. I just checked this one out.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hYCOht7W5c

      I really don’t know much about him. . I simply did what i said in the article clicked on a link and after listening to Watts his words just sort of struck me.

      • echar

        If a person has a morbid curiosity, Charles Manson is a very interesting topic. There’s a few good movies about him and the Family.

        The Manson Family – Directors Cut (2003) is kind of cheesy, but expresses the chaos well.

        Helter Skelter (2004) is more factual, with better actors.

  • jeff

    He’s fucking nuts … full stop. After which any immature mind can be dazzled.

  • Ittabena

    Ok, I have a new found respect for Ted. He is either in cahoots with Disqus in some evil way… I mean good way, or he has been studying some pretty arcane knowledge of late.

    Let me explain. Today Ted responded to me 14 times in one minute, and in some cases on articles I had never even commented on. At least that is what “My Disqus” is telling me. However, when I go to each, Ted’s response is not there.

    Ted, sir, I will never comment on Buddhism again. And what can we do to please you oh magnificent one? (humor alert!)

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      It is not DISQUS that moves it is your mind that does it…

    • echar

      I got smacked with 30 old replies from Ted. HaXx0R!

    • BuzzCoastin

      I’ve been having similar glitches
      but not with Ted
      but lots of strange Disqus glitches nonetheless

      like:
      post one place & it shows up somewhere else
      a comment from someone, turns out to a comment from someone else
      and of course the formatting glitches
      which should appear when I hit post

    • Calypso_1

      Ha! I had 99 responses fron Ted.
      Perhaps it was Manson that wasn’t really there.

      • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

        DISQUS fucking hates me.

        • Rhoid Rager

          I got all excited when I saw 24 responses. Click. Ted Heistman 24 times. Goddamn it…

        • Calypso_1

          I’ve still got 20 that won’t clear. Dude, I really think Charlie is messin with you : )

          Good article.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            thanks, man.

  • Nikolas Jon Southwell

    Manson might understand the concepts well, but to be enlightened requires one to have boundless compassion, not something I think Manson understands. Like most intelligent sociopaths, Manson loves the sound of his own voice, and understands abstract concepts very well, but hes still probably gonna be reborn in one of the hell realms.

    • Gordon

      Yes, probably, but it’s certainly possible for someone who has committed murder in this life to achieve enlightenment, and escape the hell realms (Milarepa).

    • Gordon

      Yes, probably, but it’s certainly possible for someone who has committed murder in this life to achieve enlightenment, and escape the hell realms (Milarepa).

    • Paddy Bauler

      It’s easy to see through everyone else’s bullshit and call them out on it. It’s a lot harder to see through your own except in little snippets here and there. Just because someone happened to touch a live wire and experienced a little “cosmic juice” doesn’t suddenly fill them with integrity and self honesty.

  • Nikolas Jon Southwell

    Manson might understand the concepts well, but to be enlightened requires one to have boundless compassion, not something I think Manson understands. Like most intelligent sociopaths, Manson loves the sound of his own voice, and understands abstract concepts very well, but hes still probably gonna be reborn in one of the hell realms.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    If anyone is positively disposed toward the Philosophy expressed by Manson in this interview and wants to chat, but doesn’t feel like getting in a message board war e-mail me me at tedheistman @ gmail.com

  • geminihigh

    We will never really get to know what he really was all about. I think its likely he was a victim of MPD. At times during interviews I’ve seen him change and want to warn humanity about the NWO, then its back to another character. Supposedly Mama Cass of the Mamas and the Papas was going to testify against him, but was never called during his trial. They hung out together a lot, along with various drug dealers and members of biker gangs. I think there was a definite connection between Manson and the Process Church, a truly sinister and creepy cult whose members also were known to crash at Cass’s pad with Manson followers mingling/fucking. Read some chapters of “Inside the LC” to see what I’m talking about.

    http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

  • Conzeit

    Just because upon contact with him some white people decided to murder doesnt mean he doesnt have a cogent moral code, and he clearly is intelectually far above the interviewer. Now, enligthenment? he has his moral code and he knows spiritual concepts, but as is often the case I doubt that heavy handed word fits him.

    He has his moral code which is to defend his particular tribe, which is a
    tribe of one, himself. I dont share that, most of us dont but it’s
    definitively fitting for the base survival enviroment in which he grew
    up, and has it’s parallels to tribal thinking, doesnt surprise me
    they’re calling him a shaman.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKFy7pCL5fw

    We’re used to think of shamans as enligthened gurus but that’s something we
    layer over what they originally were. They’re changing and adapting to
    out paradigms of medics and gurus, but orginal shamans are warlocks and
    they could use what they knew for murder.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      that’s a good point about Shamans they can be scary and “dark” and be perfectly legit.

  • Xaiver Buchs IV

    Ted needs to stick to gardening.

  • http://www.facebook.com/will.keffer.3 Will Keffer

    Manson is housed in Protective custody, he wouldn’t last a day in general population. He is a weak little freak that most doing long sentences would love to kill for the notoriety.

  • lilbear68

    manson thrives on these hacks, the easiest way to deal with him is to totaly ignore him. the minute one of these goes for an interview manson has won

  • Unknown

    I wish people thought I was profound when I chat shit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andybev1 Andy Beveridge

    Everyone has the right to be an idiot and talk shit sometimes – you are kicking the ass out of that right. He is a sychopathic asshole and nothing more and the lonely and easily impressed are somehow impressed by him..

  • jnana

    im not saying hes not enlightened(im no judge), but it wouldn’t surprise me to hear a criminal espouse a nondualist doctrine. Aum Shinrikyo, for example.

  • http://twitter.com/postal57 postal57

    Charles Manson is insane. He is and always has been a manipulator. I am sorry to see that you fell for it.

    • Calypso_1

      That’s what he wants you to think.

  • Matt Staggs

    General announcement: Pur Singh has been exiled to the Land of Wind and Ghosts.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Pur Singh! We hardly knew ye!

  • paul gorham

    Well written article. I’m glad to see someone saw this in Manson other than myself.

  • echar

    It takes one to know one?

  • Calypso_1

    How fresh are the clues we are supposed to find emanating from your own essence?

  • Ittabena

    He performed at one of mine, that is why I am here. Has anyone seen my White Album? I left it right next to my copy of Catcher In The Rye.

  • echar

    There’s nothing keeping you here, I will even hold the door for you.

  • Andrew

    That comment is a textbook example of psychological projection.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    I actually like some of your points.

  • Hoarfraust

    Says someone who has obviously not come into contact with the man’s presence. If you are even open enough to being able to experience “presence”. Doesn’t feed the intellectual ego much.

  • echar

    You are the one calling people turds and acting like an ass. I am merely treating you the way you are asking to be treated. Like I said before, no one is forcing you to be here. I will gladly hold the door for you.

  • echar

    In other words you are a troll.

  • echar

    you are repetitive, but don’t even rank as annoying. sad.

  • echar

    in other words, you can just keep sniffing my ass for clues.

  • Calypso_1

    Is that how you were ‘educated’?

  • Matt Staggs

    Off to the Quiet Room with you.

  • Matt Staggs
  • Andrew

    No, I won’t be shutting up.

  • Andrew

    And as long as you comment on Disinfo, you’ll have to put up with me. Until you start discussing things politely, there is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me stop.

  • Andrew

    I do like it. If you don’t, you’ll have to find a way to deal with it.

  • Andrew

    That’s exactly what I expect to happen to you… so long as you continue to rely on personal invective.

  • Andrew

    Don’t worry (if you actually are), I don’t even intend to follow you onto other websites, let alone meet you in real life.

  • Andrew

    Yeah, a browse of my Disqus page makes it clear to all that all I ever do is insult people!

    Seriously, your comments reveal far more about you than they do me (and vice versa). I’m having fun at the moment.

  • Andrew

    I don’t trust you either.

  • Andrew

    Just don’t show up on my porch and show your “pity” with one of those scatter guns. I know how you like to project.

  • Andrew

    You are so gentle and kindhearted, it’s hard to believe. I’d stay and talk, but I’ve go other things to do today. Meeting you has been like meeting the world’s best therapist, so I’ll be back to talk with you later! *hugs*

  • jnana

    I agree, and am not saying anything against nondualism, per se. But it seems to me to be fairly common for people inclined to base acts, to justify it with nondualism.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    You guys are closed minded. So so conservative. Why is it not even possible? You really think enlightenment is all about being a good little boy not jay walking etc?

  • Calypso_1

    Where in Jnana’s statement did you find the connection between recognizing ‘criminal’ exposition of nondualism & the justification of acts stemming from said individuals?

    Is the ‘justification’ & ‘crude understanding’ one you see as presented by the expositor or by those that perceive the use of the philosophy?

  • Calypso_1

    Such a familiar tone.

  • Calypso_1

    Have you ever known the delights of a well-bred courtesan?

  • Calypso_1

    You are slipping. Point & click must not have been enough of a release.

21