Sunday, June 5, 2011

Book Report: "Death to Pigs"


All information used with permission from Robert Hendrickson/Exclusive Film Network
order yours today at:
http://www.exclusivefilms.com/


Patty recently saw where someone commented on a blog something to the effect of, “I don’t know which is more shocking: the fact that Robert Hendrickson is charging $100 for his book, or that he finally got it finished!” Indeed, the cover price is a bit steep, but this is apparently a very small run for a very small audience (i.e., us), and as such, the price point for a self-published text is just going to be high. Furthermore, Patty understands Robert's hesitancy to release his story because after all, this story never ends. YES, there are a ton of typos, and YES his insistence on translating hippie slang for us seems weird. Nevertheless, SUCK IT UP PEOPLE, because there’s definitely a ton of stuff in here that you have never read anywhere else before.

The Manson mystique is a prism: depending on who you are and where you are standing, you are going to see the events differently. Herein lies the reason that the objective “truth” about the murders will never be agreed upon. In the book, Robert quotes Bruce Davis to make this point:

“It is only human to see your cat instead of the author’s cat. Therefore a skilled attorney…is going to describe for the jury his own cat…then the reporter is going to further describe the same cat…(and) if the truth is not exciting, it gets altered”

Robert’s background is military with a very high security clearance. He has a keen analytical mind and presents excellent sociopolitical and legal commentary on the events as he recorded them between late 1969 and mid-1972. He is also into metaphysics: he seems to be interested in how thoughts and energies can attract like thoughts and energies to affect physical events. This theme of “where your attention goes, your energy flows” is only one theme that caught Patty’s attention: another that was of interest was how he explains the Family’s racist beliefs as a manifestation of some of the members’ fanatical efforts to “save the planet.” The main theme of the book, however, is to liken the murders to an extremely misled but “inevitable” protest against the Viet Nam War. Patty will expand on each of these three points in turn with the understanding that because she and you are different people, you may be more interested in the word for word transcription of footage edited into his two motion pictures. You may also be more interested in all of the conflicts of interest he points out with Bugliosi’s case against Charles (note: Robert does not believe that Charles is innocent, he merely points out the multitude of ways in which he did not receive a fair trial). You may even pick up on something that none of the rest of us will, and if you do, we want to hear about it!

Robert states that he had no problem hanging out with alleged murderers because he’d just spent two years in the US Army "where killing is their whole business.” He believes that the Family felt that they were their own establishment, separate from the establishment that went out and killed thousands of innocents at My Lai. The Family did not feel that they should be held responsible for the political statement they were making in much the same way that neither the US President nor the infantrymen who actually do the killing are held responsible for the murders that they commit. He is very careful to point out to us the numerous times that Viet Nam is mentioned by Family members. He also suggests that the timing of the sensationalized Manson trial in relation to the inquiries going on at the same time was not a coincidence: that the Manson trial was actually used by the establishment as a red herring to distract us from the larger crimes in which we were all implicitly taking part:

“The infamous My Lai Massacre was executed on March 16, 1968 by US soldiers in Viet Nam…the story finally broke on November 12, 1969, just two weeks before the LAPD announced that it had cracked the Tate and La Bianca Murder cases.”

The details that he is able to present are though provoking to say the least.

Thought provoking also was the transcription of his conversation with Paul Crockett, the supposed “deprogrammer” of Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston. Crockett describes the mind as a machine made up of three parts: a moving part, an emotional part and a thinking part. Any of the three areas can be conditioned much like Pavlov’s dogs to elicit a response in any of the other areas. The conditioning can be simple, like the wave of a hand, or more complex and intense. Robert believes that Manson’s main purpose in choking Little Paul to within an inch of his life was to provide him with a near death experience, hence causing him to “die in his mind:”


"Soon I realized that I was gonna die and then I though it was okay if I died anyway…and then he… jumped back and he grinned and said, come on. Come on and make love with me. And uh, that was really kinda like coming into his world for the first time.”

Once a family member had experienced death first hand, it became a large part of their consciousness and opened them up to considering things they might have never done otherwise. Like murder, for instance. Merrick asks Little Paul at one point how Tex and three girls could take on and kill four people? Paul replies that the murders were inevitable, that the occupants of the Tate house had actually been attracting it with their thoughts and actions: Rosemary’s Baby, the rumored whipping party, etc. In an interview with Brenda later on in the book, she echoes this same sentiment.

Brenda also touches on the racism of the family in that conversation when she states,

“People have called us prejudice…we aren’t against anybody, we aren’t against anything. We are for our own. We’d like to see our own kind survive. We love the fair skin, we love the blue eyes. We love it enough to wanna save it.”

Robert further goes on to claim that the reason non-whites were not allowed to have sex with the Family was to help prevent the extinction of “certain endangered peoples.” This is an interesting idea to Patty: people being endangered much like animals (which is what The Family claimed to be: just animals like all the others on the planet, none more important than any other since “we are all one”). Today, those on the extreme left are so hardcore about saving every single subspecies of say, finches, that they are almost reactionary in their efforts to make it so. It is almost as if the political continuum of the Family is a circle, not a line, and the ideologies that they were espousing met on the back side of the circle. In other words, they are sooooo liberal that they are actually conservative. Looking at the Family in this light, Patty now believes that the Manson Family was separatist not because other races were seen as inferior, but rather as desirable due to their diversity: Remember Squeaky telling Paul Krassner that “If John really loved the Japanese people, he would not have married Yoko?” This seems to be what she was getting at.

“So just what is the point of examining an old crime and its designated court case?” Robert muses. “to learn from the memorable ‘understandings’ of a society in order that the purpose of civilization may be advanced.” Patty could not agree more. There is so much more to be said about this book, but Patty is sure that she is boring you by now. She recommends that you find out for yourself, make your own decision. Team up with a friend if the price is too high. Then, let’s all pick it apart together, shall we?





100 comments:

ACFisherAldag said...

Some of Charles's views, and his circle's views, on racial politics are explored in the most recent "Order of ATWA" blog.

I wanna point out that many indigenous cultures have that same ideology. For instance, some First Nations people want to marry or breed with only other First Nations people, to preserve the purity of their culture. Zoroastrians are only allowed to marry other Zoroastrians. And so forth.

For some reason, our liberal overculture considers this racist when it applies to whites.

Using the example, again, of First Nations people... at Pow Wows and some other cultural gatherings, only First Nations people can sell things and participate in certain rites. People of African descent have particular colleges, groups, organizations and churches where only people of African descent can participate. My son can't get an NAACP scholarship to attend Tuskeegee university. There are fraternities and sororities only for people of African heritage.

Yet when Indigenous Europeans practice that same separatism, it is viewed as racist.

Panamint Patty said...

Because us whities are the dominant culture, right? That is what makes the difference in the agreements our society has made as to how we may and may not speak of others. Because we have the power to oppress them. (?)

Panamint Patty said...

and historically, have oppressed others and continue to do so in some circles.

Matt said...

This is a subject I have always found fascinating. You seek to understand a way of thinking (neither believing in it or judging it, just seeking to understand it) and you find yourself under attack for exploring ideas.

In college I was reading The Communist Manifesto in the library because it was required reading for a PolySci class. I found myself under attack from a couple of jocks who didn't feel that it was appropriate reading. They really weren't capable of grasping the ideas within the book theoretically and discussing them objectively without assuming that I was in agreement with them.

Look back at the previous Death To Pigs post and re-read Hendrickson's ideas on mental maturity. I see the same principals at play here on this blog and on others.

rfoster1 said...

I have my copy! I have yet to start reading it, though.

adam said...

Where can this book be purchased? It sounds great.

PS. AC makes some good points about racial politics. We all want a world of racial harmony and equality. However liberal lefties push too hard and apparantly won't be happy until whites are the most oppressed people on the planet.

ACFisherAldag said...

I don't necessarily agree with all of what's said... just trying to explain it. Don't necessarily disagree with it all, either.

LoLo said...

$100 may not be much to some & I have almost every book, movie, etc on the topic. But since I recently lost my job I couldn't spend $100 without feeling guilty that the money could go to my kids. Maybe he will reduce it or someone would be willing to sell their copy down the road. I want to read it very badly.

Shak El said...

Alot of 1st peoples have as a principle that your tribe is of your mother. The idea that 1st people had to have two 'pure' parents was european racism projected onto their victims. A good example of this is the native Tasmanians who are said to be extinct. That comes as news to the thousands of native Tasmanians who over the years have been regaining their rights. Your Tasmanian if you mother is one (just like the Jewish folk). The idea of extinction is derived from a short period in the mid 1800's when the last 'full-blooded' male of the tribe was killed.

MrPoirot said...

The idea that all Americans were openly participating in murder in Viet Nam is an extreme example of sophistry from that era. Lt Calley was prosecuted for executing unarmed prisoners.

Sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation. When fiction is presented as fact.

Panamint Patty said...

Calley was indeed prosecuted but had his sentence significantly shortened to three and a half years of house arrest in his own quarters by President Nixon.

MrPoirot said...

Yes that is so.

After the Americans left Viet Nam three million people were executed by the communist. No one ever mentions that. The same people back then who supported the communists and utilized the My Lay massacre for propagand showed no concern for the 3 million murdered by the communists. No one was ever charged in that mass extermination.

MrPoirot said...

[quote]Patty recently saw where someone commented on a blog something to the effect of, “I don’t know which is more shocking: the fact that Robert Hendrickson is charging $100 for his book, or that he finally got it finished!” Indeed, the cover price is a bit steep, but this is apparently a very small run for a very small audience (i.e., us), and as such, the price point for a self-published text is just going to be high. [end quote]

Mr Poirot replies:

If you look at the top 25 best selling books in the US it makes you wonder why Hendrickson's book isn't picked up by a big publisher. It makes me curious what other fascinating stories are out there that aren't being published. All the neat books I find tend to be seldom mentioned anywhere. Id rather read an interesting story with typos than a boring Simon & Shuster top 25 new edition. There's some real crap being put out by the big publishers now. It's the same way in the record biz and Hollywood now: nothing but crap.

ACFisherAldag said...

I wonder if Mr. Hendrickson is planning to share his profits with his subjects of interest?

Matt said...

AC, why should he? He made those films and owns the copyrights. To write a book using those films as the basis is also his right.

candy and nuts said...

the article on the order of ATWA about MAnson and racism has some really good points in it thanks AC for mentioning it

kickboxer said...

Why would he share his profits? d

Ken619 said...

Has AC every carved an X in her forehead?

candy and nuts said...

Ken I think she mentioned she did as I did also 25 yrs ago

Ken619 said...

OK Candy and Nuts. Do you regret doing this? As an adult, do you look back and feel maybe you shouldn't of done it? Would you do it again today? Would you rejoice if one of your children walked through the front door with an X carved into their forehead?

candy and nuts said...

Ken I did it because one thing Helter Skelter book and other media outlets showed me was the Earth is dying and whether I follow MAnson or the man in the moon the earth is being killed everyday no I dont regret it at all and children well personally I I dont know why children are brought in this but 1) no I give my children free expression and 2) my child cares more about Star WARS ( he is researcher for one of George Lucas writers ) so I doubt hed want an X on his maybe a tattoo of DArth VAder though

candy and nuts said...

Ken PS you asked would I do it again Im not sure what your saying if I already did it why the need to repeat the action it is done

Ken619 said...

The other two questions

Would you do it again today?

Would you rejoice if one of your children walked through the front door with an X carved into their forehead?

candy and nuts said...

Ken if my children had an X or a tattoo or a piercing I would accept this is their freedom of expression exactly what answer are you hoping to hear from me on this? you seem to be prodding to get me to say some negative however that wont happen so you shont waste your energy but thanks for being concerned/interested

Ken619 said...

I'm being straight forward with my questions. I'm just trying to understand. Thank you.

AC?

candy and nuts said...

Ken and I appreciate that you are straightforward I guess it was you who asked AC if she has an X and I chimmed in whereperhaps I should not have

ACFisherAldag said...

Yes, I had the X. Not carved but branded. Along with many tattoos and piercings. My body, I can decorate it how I want. It's still somewhat visible, especially when I get a tan.

I feel better about my daughters' tattoos and piercings than I do about her coloring her hair, which is absolutely horrible for the environment. Bleach is one of the worst things EVER for our water. Nail polish is horrid for both the body and the environment, and the varnish remover is even worse.

However, she is an adult, she does as she wishes. If she decided on any branding, then I'd not be excited about it, as branding is rather dangerous, can get infected easily, so if she chose to do that, I'd hope it'd be under sterile conditions, as were the tattoos and piercings.

At the time, the symbolism was valid, as it meant removing oneself from a dying society. Now with the negative publicity, the symbolism has come to mean something quite different. So no, probably not. Have considered an ATWA tattoo... but it's sort of expensive. Hmmm, money for wind turbine, money for vanity. Guess which won out?

Here in MI, tattooing and branding isn't legal until age 18, so my son isn't doing either, but he has piercings.

I would strongly suggest any ritualized cutting or scarification, mostly cuz of the chance of infection. Professionals won't do it -- they're concerned about bacteria.

How about the rest of youse? Do you cut or color your hair? Any tattoos or piercings? Now, I'm sure some of those have special significance, other than cosmetic. How about shaving? Putting varnish on your finger or toenails? All of that is body mod.

ACFisherAldag said...

Why not pay ones' interview subjects? Well, my media company gives contributors a free ad, if they want it. Some magazines and broadcast stations offer money. Some book authors pay funds or free publicity. If you were to be interviewed on a TV show, they'd pay your plane fare, food, hotel and a small stipend. Why? Because it is fair, that's why.

Ken619 said...

thank you.

candy and nuts said...

well I did cut an X on my head as afalling cross to the christian influenced establishment Id ont regret it ever its hardly visible after 25 yrs but I wont change my action at all

candy and nuts said...

Ac well Im not sure of the laws but unless someones name and likeness is copyrighted or they signed something its fair game ed sanders said he spent time at the ranch ate did garbage runs etc he wrote the book who knows ya its true M and others got ripped off for money whats new?

Shak El said...

Alot of folk read CM as a right-winger when his ideas are actually atunned to a political view known as "The Third Position." Some of his circle went on to articulate left anarchists ideas like Larry Gidddings.

Shak El said...

Larry Giddings text:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/526

MrPoirot said...

ACFisherAldag said...
I wonder if Mr. Hendrickson is planning to share his profits with his subjects of interest?

MR Poirot replies:

If Hendrickson had written a book on viey nam wae should he share profits with VN vets?

Hendrickson was not a defendent in the TLB case thus none of his profits are susceptible to be garnerned by TLB surviving family.

MrPoirot said...

June 6, 2011 3:23 PM

candy and nuts said...
Ken I think she mentioned she did as I did also 25 yrs ago

Mr Poirot replies:

Candy amd Nuts, I have a serious question you may be able to answer.

The defendents and Manson supporters during the trial religiously copied everything Charlie did. If Charlie shaved his head they shaved their heads. If Charlie carved and X in his forehead they did so as well as you did too.

Why then didn't Manson supporters not carve their already preexisting Xs into swastikas like Charlie did? Was this where Charlie began to lose mind control over his followers? Not one Mansson follower carved their X into a swastika.

MrPoirot said...

Shak El said...
Alot of folk read CM as a right-winger when his ideas are actually atunned to a political view known as "The Third Position." Some of his circle went on to articulate left anarchists ideas like Larry Gidddings.

Mr Poirot replies:

Charlie was a left winger. At no point did Charlie or any Family member speak out against LBJ personally. The Manson Family was a typical leftist zealot group who probably never even bothered to register to vote. The really kooky fanatics dont vote. They feel subconsciously that one person does not matter nor can a single person cause change. Thus they tend towards terroristic methogs such as Right wing Mcveigh and Left wing Charlie.

MrPoirot said...

Has anybody ever read where Hitler ever voted in Germany?

candy and nuts said...

Mr P its amusing by any stretch of the imagination how far you search about X or hair shorn Im more curious the rationale of WHY youre so interested dutell before you point a finger at me yu have 4 fingers on your hand pointing back

candy and nuts said...

Candy amd Nuts, I have a serious question you may be able to answer.

The defendents and Manson supporters during the trial religiously copied everything Charlie did. If Charlie shaved his head they shaved their heads. If Charlie carved and X in his forehead they did so as well as you did too.

Why then didn't Manson supporters not carve their already preexisting Xs into swastikas like Charlie did? Was this where Charlie began to lose mind control over his followers? Not one Mansson follower carved their X into a swastika. hm Mr P you seem to be searching hard for reasons when things are what they are

candy and nuts said...

MrPoirot you are searching hard for answers you really want to debate play mental ping pong here is my email altravioletsky@gmail.com I wont use up this forum about you you are welcome to write me

MrPoirot said...

candy and nuts said...
Mr P its amusing by any stretch of the imagination how far you search about X or hair shorn Im more curious the rationale of WHY youre so interested dutell before you point a finger at me yu have 4 fingers on your hand pointing back

Mr Poirot replies:

Please, please! Don't take what I said as a shot against you. This is an honesst question and this actually happened. NONE of Charlie's supporters followed his act of carving the X inro a swastika. NOT ONE!

Yet NOWHERE does ANYONE discuss this break beween Charlie and his supporters.

There must be logical reason why you didn't morph the X into the swastika. You obviously refused to morph that far with Charlie.

Why?

Whether you answer or not the question is still there.

eviliz said...

ACFisherAldag said...
Yes, I had the X. Not carved but branded.

Ac i have a question for you- i am trying to remember from your interview, did you say you did the x at age 14?

you also said you had the X branded.
i know that now you can go to a tattoo parlor or other related places to get branded.
back then i dont think there was any such place. if you got your brand "back in the day" where did you have it done? or did a friend do it for you? just curious.

eviliz said...

LoLo said...
$100 may not be much to some & I have almost every book, movie, etc on the topic. But since I recently lost my job I couldn't spend $100 without feeling guilty that the money could go to my kids.

LoLo as a single finacially struggling parent i understand your thinking but- sometimes you need to treat yourself.

MrPoirot said...

I will answer the question if none of them chooses to because i know the answer. I'm giving folks a chance to use their own words and thoughts. I'm much more curious about THEIR thoughts than my conclusions.

MrPoirot said...

Everyone in the Western world saw that Charlie and his followers carved an X into their foreheads.

Everyone in the world knows that ONLY Charlie carved a swastika into his forehead.

Something went on there. Must we not discuss it?

eviliz said...

ACFisherAldag said...
Why not pay ones' interview subjects?

i believe at the time Hendrickson told the Family he was making a documentry about communal living not with just the Family but others living the same way and asked them if they would like to participate.

i am pretty sure that Hendrickson would have mentioned to the Family they would NOT be receiving payment for their participation and time.
if anything he gave the Family free advertising on what ever messages the Family was trying to send to the public.
as luck would have it Hendrickson just happened to be working with the Family when everything went down.

MrPoirot said...

Hendrickson was the Michael Moore of his day Both of them exploit people and claim they are idealists interested only in the good of the common man.

The highest selling live album by the counter culture Rolling Stones group features a lead-in "Fanfare For The Common Man". They made millions off that album. Mick Jagger accepted a Knighthood. None of which I disagree with. However it is hypocritical if you compare it to the views espoused by Mick in his counterculture days. He's still a Labor Party voter but he hides his income in countries that have lower tax rates than the Labor Party.

MrPoirot said...

When Conservatives are in charge with a 60 seat filibuster-proof senate majority and a numerical advantage in the house and pres in the white house and a media that agrees with them then so too will hypocisy reign from th other direction. Government is tyranny. Thus we have a constitution and are a republic not a pure democrasy.

candy and nuts said...

mrpoirotyou seem to have some need to know about the modification of the x the swastika and I do not need or defend what is it seems you are more concerned then truth

candy and nuts said...

Mr P you saw some Associated press photos at best you really never saw what is truth and insofar why is it so pertinent if it is x or a 4cross?

candy and nuts said...

Mr p an x and a swastika represnt the same thing 4 corners perhaps you need to read some literature on symbolism

MrPoirot said...

OK Sandra

candy and nuts said...

Mr P i wrote and spoke with Red many times so if you equate me to BLue your on target

adam said...

Any word on if this book is going to be available in the UK? As much as I want this book, if I order it from the States it's price will make it subject to inport tax (another $50 or so!) and it will be held up by customs for 3 weeks before I can collect it.

candy and nuts said...

Mr po would yu feel like a winner in this debate if I went back and corned my X with slashes then yu will will get your answ2er\

Matt said...

AC, Hendrickson states clearly that all subjects signed waivers. They were asked by Charlie to let themselves be filmed. It is all 100% RH's property.

Mrstormsurge said...

two thoughts here:

1. Does CA have laws prohibiting inmates, especially those convicted of crimes of the magnitude CM was convicted of, from "profiting" from a book about them? Please keep in mind that I am not saying CM would be profiting but if the state considers it as such that it could and would prohibit money from going to him.

2. MrPoirot, on the swastika from the X, I've always wondered if CM was trying to protect himself from the AB in prison by adopting the swastika and fitting in with them.

Anyway, enjoying all the discussion here

Matt said...

From Robert Hendrickson:

-------------------

We have a dozen copies where the last page is printed slightly cocked a couple of degrees. If any of your bloggers email us and mention the "eviliz offer' they can have one of these books for $65 (includes Priority mail shipping). If they want the Book with our 2 DVDs, they can have the entire Media Collection for $99.95 (includes shipping)

-------------------

Panamint Patty said...

Eviliz special! woot woot!

ACFisherAldag said...

You cannot copyright someone's name and image, or the title of a movie or book. You can trademark a name, title or image. Charles has never given permission for his name or image to become a trademark.

You can use a person's image or name if it is newsworthy in an article, column or news report.

A person who is being interviewed should recoup some type of renumeration for their efforts.

ACFisherAldag said...

MrPeroit, if Hendrickson had interviewed individual Viet Nam soldiers, then yes, he should compensate the.

Since Mr. Hendrickson interviewed individual family members, then yes, they should receive compensation.

ACFisherAldag said...

About the X -- I can only speak for myself. It was more of a social "fad", where one person, say, gets a "HIM" tattoo, and others copy them. It's not compulsory. Has nothing to do with control. It seems like a good idea, so others copy it. Now the "HIM" tattoo has lost all of its original meaning.

ACFisherAldag said...

Evil Liz, I believe that I was 13. I did it myself, using gold metal, sterilized. Would I do it again? No, I'm not a professional.

In our tradition, a bride traditionally has her nose pierced. I have that too, as you can likely see from my photos. I stopped doing that for brides when one of them got a terrible infection from the piercing. Now, I recommend going to a reputable tattooist, piercer, brander with a license for body modification and sterile procedure.

ACFisherAldag said...

MrPeroit, if you're asking did anyone coerce me or force me, in any way, to have the X done, the answer is no. I can't speak for any of the other ladies about their state of mind, only the symbolism, as it has been communicated to me. Of the ladies I associated with who had ties to the family, some of them had it, some of them did not. One was a professional hostess, so she did not, as her physical looks were important to her job.

ACFisherAldag said...

I did not do the swastika as the symbolism was not relevant to me... Cymri culture, which I am from, and Anglo-Saxon culture, Nepali culture, some First Nations culture, and other cultures that use that symbol, are quite different things.

I have a friend of Hindi/ East Indian descent who uses that symbol as part of her culture, has it in henna on her hands once a year.

Charles tells me that the swastika was 1.) a symbol of the four directions & light, love, life, and ... something... perhaps Shak El knows the fourth. And 2.) An attempt to identify with AB members who use that symbol. He was incarcerated for a while with the head of the AB, who has since been transferred. This gentleman has several swastika tattoos... one may conclude that others have as much influence on Manson as he has on them.

MrPoirot said...

candy and nuts said...
Mr po would yu feel like a winner in this debate if I went back and corned my X with slashes then yu will will get your answ2er\

Mr Poirot replies:

Only if you also agree to go to a plastic surgeon and have your ears made pointy like Mr Spock.

Matt said...

AC, the subjects signed waivers making their interviews & likenesses in the films property of RH.

Charles may never have given permission for use of his likeness but he is a public figure. His likeness is in the public domain and as such requires no compensation for its use.

With a celebrity that doesn't apply if you are making money from it - but he's not a celeb, he's an inmate.

ACFisherAldag said...

Evil Liz, that would be a wonderful question to ask Mr. Hendrickson himself. "Did the family members sign waivers for the movie and book to use their interviews without compensation?"

Matt, where does it say that? Not being a snot, really; I haven't seen the movies nor read the books. Is there a disclaimer somewhere?

ACFisherAldag said...

Said Matt: "Charles may never have given permission for use of his likeness but he is a public figure. His likeness is in the public domain and as such requires no compensation for its use."

At one time, we'd considered attempting to fight that in court, but it'd be such a long, drawn-out battle so as not to be worth it.

Matt said...

AC, yes it says it in Death To Pigs. They signed waivers.

Panamint Patty said...

Patty had an off-topic observation this morning, but in another way it's right on topic, too: Americans don't look each other in the eyes any more, do they?

ACFisherAldag said...

Matt: Thank you.

Patty: Dunno, can't see them, hahaha!

MrPoirot said...

Self mutilation is an underlying symptom of bipolar and borderline personality disorder.

adam said...

In many cases yes, but Charles carved a X in his forehead as a symbolic gesture. He'd 'X'd himself out of straight society. He wanted to live out in the desert with those that held his beliefs, away from the establishment and it's values. Whether his dislike against society was so strong he wanted to 'off' a few pigs as a goodbye gesture is always going to be up for debate.

Mrstormsurge said...

Self-mutilation if you want to assume that an X-carving or branding is that (and i am not necessarily assured it is anymore than piercing would be) can be a sign of multiple psych disorders but by itself is not diagnostic of any one or even one at all. Of course, diagnosing requires multiple symptoms and evidence of some impairment to one's functioning in some important sphere of life such as relationships work, school, etc. Yes, I am a professional and did not stay at a Holiday Inn (I'm at a Hyatt right now :-))

ACFisherAldag said...

MrPeroit, do you cut your hair? Were you circumsized? Do you shave? Do you cut your toenails? Anyone in your family color their hair using harmful bleaching products? Liposuction? Plastic surgery? Had your tonsils or appendix removed?

Classic example of imposing one's values in an Americocentric way.

We could say that Africans who perform ritual scarification as part of their manhood rite, people who pierce their babies' ears, those who circumsize their baby sons, and so forth are practicing mutilation. Often on little children who haven't any say in the procedure.

San Francisco is currently trying to outlaw circumcision. The Hebrew and Muslim communities are in a huge tizzy. Hacking off a chunkof their boys' penises is a time-honored tradition. Who are we to say it's wrong?

A couple months ago, Smithsonian Magazine had an article on body modification around the world. Tattoos, piercings, brandings, scarification, removing various body parts, altering various body parts, for a variety of reasons.

All of these people can't possibly have some invented psychiatric disorder.

Yet we think nothing of ladies depicted in the American media with breast augmentation and 22 inch waists. Now that's some seriously weird type of mindset. Who could possibly consider that beautiful, let alone get sexually aroused seeing that in a magazine?

I'm healthy, I'm at optimal weight, I'm free of cancerous tumors (now THAT was some serious body-mod, LOL!) And I'm thinking about maybe another tattoo or six.

MrPoirot said...

Nice try AC but if it quacks it's a duck. BTW did you get that out of volume 7 or volume 8 of your BS Manuals? You should get a job as white house press spokesperson. Mogambo needs you.

MrPoirot said...

adam said...
In many cases yes, but Charles carved a X in his forehead as a symbolic gesture. He'd 'X'd himself out of straight society. He wanted to live out in the desert with those that held his beliefs, away from the establishment and it's values. Whether his dislike against society was so strong he wanted to 'off' a few pigs as a goodbye gesture is always going to be up for debate.

Mr Poirot replies:

I've always wondered what put each person at Spahn Ranch? What alienated them from their families? What caused these people to be outcasts? Why did Charlie have to pick these children up out of the ditch? What put them in the ditch? How come they were cast out of Spahn Ranch too? They even got thrown out of Death Valley.

The Family all ended up throwaways together on their tiny Ranch; they accepted each other for a few months but then they had to run away from that too. There's plenty of clues(symptoms0 as to what caused the Family's repetitive flameouts. The psychological aspect explains some of the whys.

eviliz said...

MrPoirot said...
OK Sandra

tee hee

ACFisherAldag said...

Wasn't rejection of society a really common condition in that era?

It seems that there was a lot about society to reject.

During that time period, I believe there was a tremendous amount of anti-establishment thought and belief.

What happened at the Ranch wasn't any more destructive than sending millions of poor young folks off to fight an unwinnable war against a non-existent threat.

MrPoirot said...

That type of deceptive justification is called sophistry.

For example a cloud is 100% water: A watermelon is 97% water. Thus there is only a 3% difference between a cloud and a watermelon.

AC do you notice thousands of watermelons floating in the sky everyday? If not, why not? Clouds and watermelons are almost exactly alike! There's very little difference between the two.

orwhut said...

MrPoirot said...

After the Americans left Viet Nam three million people were executed by the communist. No one ever mentions that.

MrPoirot,
I've tried to confirm the number (three million) that you gave above and haven't had any luck. Could you give me a link or tell me where to look. I don't want to quote that figure and not be able to back it up.
Thank you,
Orwhut

MrPoirot said...

Orwhut if you do a search you'll find it. This is a concern in Iraq and Iran if we leave we are aware that all the native people who supported us there will face persecution or execution.

adam said...

I think most of the girls who ended up at Spahnn were there because it was "cool" to play the hippie thing. Most came from good middle class families. Only Sadie, Squeaky and Gypsy came from broken homes. Most hippies may have deluded themselves that they were changing the world but in reality that were just being self indulgent. Lounging around taking drugs and balling anything and everyone while waiting for the next welfare handout. Is there nothing more selfish? How was that ment to better society? This is not ment to be a rant however it may read. It's just that what started out as civil right movements and protests against wars ended up being about kids looking for a good time. Most of them went back to mommy and daddy in a few years anyway and are now all lawyers and businessmen.

MrPoirot said...

adam said...
I think most of the girls who ended up at Spahnn were there because it was "cool" to play the hippie thing. Most came from good middle class families. Only Sadie, Squeaky and Gypsy came from broken homes.

Mr Poirot replies:

The Manson Family is unique. I don't think a single one of them were normal middle class. They ALL were broken people. The Family was an assemblidge of psychotics. Charlie was their last resort. These people had ended up in the gutter and hit rock bottom. Charlie showed them they could fall further.

ACFisherAldag said...

What I perceive is an attempt to equate association with Manson, and copying some his actions, with mental illness. THAT is the sophistic argument. The media states that Manson is insane, therefore, those who associate with him are viewed as lacking mental capacity. or emotional control. Blatantly untrue.

First of all, most of modern psychiatric philosophy is rubbish. It is based on junk science. Mental capacity or emotional health cannot be quantified. It's all subjective. Unless there is a direct relation between brain and /or glandular chemicals and affect / moods / behavior, then it's just theorizing, with no basis in reality. It has as much validity as phrenology.

Second, most of what Americans consider to be mentally healthy or emotionally appropriate has been enculturated by public schools and the media, based on Judeo-Christian principles which are themselves not particularly benefical to growth or self-actualization.

Consider that magical thinking and homosexuality were both considered as mental illness, listed in the DSM right up until the 70s. Hey, Christians, this means that shrinks think that prayer is a symptom of mental illness!

Behavior that is beneficial to one subset of people can be viewed as unhealthy or dangerous by another set of people. Often it is based purely on value judgments of the overculture. In America, what is perceived as "healthy" often has to do with "what makes money" or "what pleases the patriarchy". Therefore, scarification is seen as a sign of diminished mental capacity or emotional instability, and protests against the dominant portions of society are viewed as negative behavior. However, starving a woman for some ideal of "beauty" is considered perfectly sane and healthy -- and encouraged by every media outlet. This says more about who is making the rules, than actions that are genuinely detrimental to an individual's mental health.

If you lived in sub-Saharan Africa, and you did not have ritual scars, you'd be considered an outcast at best, or fug-ugly at worst, and possibly stoned to death.

So under this set of values, a small group of individual young ladies who choose to cut or burn X scars on their brows as a symbol of removing themselves from an unjust society is considered mentally unhealthy, but masses of young women starving themselves, ingesting dangerous diet pills, jamming themselves into corsets and brassieres, wearing high-heeled shoes which harm their feet and leg tendons, is considered healthy, normal, desirable behavior. Riiiiight.

ACFisherAldag said...

Disagree with the idea that the folks at the Ranch were either "broken" or "psychotic". I think the operant word here is "disenfranchised". That was the condition of most middle-class females in the 1960s.

MrPoirot said...

ACFisherAldag said...
What I perceive is an attempt to equate association with Manson, and copying some his actions, with mental illness. THAT is the sophistic


Mr Poirot replies:

That is false. Charlie was diagnosed schizophrenic in the 1950s and again in the 1960s as having schizophrenia. His mother said he was mentally ill. Charlie admitted in 1984 to having a mental breakdown in the late 60s. He was housed in the mental ward at Cocoran prison for many years.

MrPoirot said...

Many of the girls were into drugs which led them into the drug cultute. Brenda had a family and her mother even made regular visitd to Spahn's to see Brenda. Paul Watkins had family. Leslie drifted into drugs in high school and particcipated in NA and AA for years in prison. Krenwinkle spoke of how drugs led her astray. Simi Valley Sherry had family very close by whom she visited regularly. Sandy was self supporting as well as Mary Bruner both with college degrees but chose drugs and drifting. Only Sadie and Gypsy were "disenfranchized". Squeaky had mental problems as a child and fell into drugs. Their heavy drug usage was the key to their being ostricized from society. Clem was ok until he fell in with Charlie and drugs. He didnt have to do that. He chose to join and he chose to do drugs. Tex destroyed himself with drugs. Many of the ex Family members tell of how seriously damaged they became from drugs. Diane Lake and Gypsy admit their mental state deteriated terribbly due to drugs. Gypsy said acid use left her in a childlike state for years. Diane was committed for drug induced mental deteriation,

ACFisherAldag said...

Charles was NEVER housed in "the Mental Ward" at Corcoran prison... he's been in PHU or SHU since its inception. Those are units to isolate prisoners from the general population for their own safety, or as a punishment for infractions against the rules.

Charles was put in Vacaville, which is a medical prison, for mental ailments in the 70s. He was subsequently found mentally competent and put in general population.

I have his medical records. Charles was diagnosed with schizophrenia back in the early sixties. I give that as much weight as diagnosing housewives who were unsatisfied with being second-class citizens with depression and dousing them with so much Valium that they were zombies. For pity's sake, Sigmund Fraud and psychoanalysis were still given credence in the 60s. They were still doing shock treatments. People were being diagnosed with "Neurosis" which isn't even considered a real condition any more. I'd look at a diagnosis of schizophrenia from the sixties with extreme skepticism.

Currently, Charles hasn't any diagnosis of any mental illness. He has cognitive problems including dyslexia. Schizophrenia is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals. It isn't curable. It doesn't just go away. So if he hadn't it then, he hasn't it now.

Yup, drugs are bad. Yet in the sixties, so-called medical doctors were handing out pharmaceuticals like candy, dangerous substances. Everyone drank alcohol. Everyone smoked cigarettes. So the kids in the counter-culture got the notion that self-medication was acceptable.

MrPoirot said...

AC in every interview I've ever seen Charlie acts wildly crazy. He makes bizarre nonsequitor statements and monsterous faces while swinging his arms. He screams out strange phonic sounds that are incoherent. I've never once seen Charlie act normal in an interview and Ive watched dozens of them. Charlie was diagnosed Ambulatory Schizophrenic by Dr David Smith in 1968. He was diagnosed schizophrenic in 1954 as well.

Yet you make him out to be a misunderstood guru who only wants to help the world if we'd just listen to his words. Well his words don't make sense. We have listened to him. He's on youtube more than anybody else. It's blatantly obvious that he has always been criminally insane. He's a crazy as a barrel full of spider monkeys.


One of the key symptoms that seperates schizophrenia from bipolar is that schidzos hear voices in their head talking to them. Do you remember Charlie was hearing The Beatles talking to him from the White Album? Those voices talking to Charlie weren't The Beatles; those voices were the symptoms of his schizophrenia. Charlie has admitted he went crazy at the time of TLB.

adam said...

Mr.Poirot, watch footage of Charlie speaking during the early syages of the trial. He is not acting crazy or speaking gibberish. He is quite soft spoken and witty. No demonic glare either. That all came later when he got sick of all the mad hippy cult leader with hynotic powers jive being thrown at him. Now when the cameras are on he gives the public what they want to see. I have read and heard many accounts of people that vist Charlie in prison who say he is nothing like how he acts for the media.

ACFisherAldag said...

MrPeroit, please watch interviews with Nikolas Schreck, Ron Reagan, Michal binHorin, and Penny Daniels. He's not "playing to the media" and speaks thoughtfully and coherently throughout.

Please listen to any of the interviews on the ATWA You Tube channels. One these, he is mostly talking to friends and supporters. Charles still speaks in metaphor, uses allusions that I don't always understand... but so do most artists, musicians, poets and shamans whom I've interviewed. He speaks the same way as Jim Morrison did.

Charles isn't that difficult to interpret. When he makes a comment such as "I'm WWI and the U.S. Army is my father" it means that he was born after the WWI era and that former soldiers took care of him... not to mention that his father may have been an anonymous soldier. Prison slang is much like any other colloquial: if you understand the terms, you'll know what they're saying.

The wild gesculating hollering "shock the media" behavior is an act. It is expected of him, so that's what he does. He does that when the warden brings dignitaries on tour of the prison, looking at the inmates as if they were monkeys in a cage at the zoo. Give them a show. The gesculation and vocalization is also meant to show that Charles is more about movement and sound than he is about verbal communication.

We might interpret this as crazy, because we are enculturated to listen to talking heads on an electronic device. Or read print. I once interviewed an Anishnabec shaman who did the exact same thing. "Tell us about your ceremony, Mr. Weesaw". So he begins dancing like a badger stalking a bird, playing both the part of the badger and bird. European conquerers would've said "How very quaint" right before shooting him.

Charles believes that much of the media is corrupt, not designed to be truthful but to sell bleach. So he doesn't treat many interviews seriously.

I have interviewed hip-hop artists who behaved the same way... doing the "shock white establishment" thing and making comments like "You ain't street, Missy Anne", meaning, I won't understand their perspective because I am perceived as part of the overculture. My response is "Please stop hollering at me long enough to make your point to our readers". Which works. Because they wanna sell CDs more than they wanna insult me.

Shak El took some of Charles's writing and broke it down into stanzas, as poetry... and people got it.

ACFisherAldag said...

P.S. The Beatles thing was made up by the prosecutor... the only ones listening to that album repeatedly, using the Helter Skelter metaphor, were Susan and Patricia. Hearing the same album played nine million times drove everyone else to distraction.

adam said...

Charlie stating that the music was speaking to and sending messages to the youth was completley misunderstood and taken out of context by the Bug.

MrPoirot said...

ACFisherAldag said...
P.S. The Beatles thing was made up by the prosecutor... the only ones listening to that album repeatedly, using the Helter Skelter metaphor, were Susan and Patricia. Hearing the same album played nine million times drove everyone else to distraction.

Mr Poirot replies:

Any of the 20 at Barkers in winter 68/69 heard Charlie's Helter Skelter ideology. Watkins, Gypsy, Flynn talked extensively about HS being Charlie's mantra. Helter Skelter was painted on a cupboard door in Juan Flynn's cabin at Spahn's. It was painted at the Labianca's. Charlie and Stephanie Schram stopped off at Steph's sister's house coming back from Easelen and was preaching HS to them at the dinner table. AC your friendship with Charlie has created a bias in your mind. You've lost your objectivity. The HS cupboard door in Flynn's cabin was found by detectives and entered into evidence prior to Bugliosi's involvement in the case.

ACFisherAldag said...

Charles did not paint Helter Skelter at the LaBianca's, Patricia did. I'm not sure who painted it in Flynn's house, as at the time, Charles was still functionally illiterate.

MrPoirot said...

ACFisherAldag said...
Charles did not paint Helter Skelter at the LaBianca's, Patricia did. I'm not sure who painted it in Flynn's house, as at the time, Charles was still functionally illiterate

Mr Poirot replies:

No Charlie didn't write it thus proving that others heard and absorbed his theory. Brooks Poston describes Charlie's Helter Skelter theory in Manson73.

adam said...

Even now she kisses Bug's ass and says she's a born again Christian, Gypsy still categoricaly states that Charlie never used the term Helter Skelter.
Ask Charlie what it means and he'll say "it means confusion". Not "go out and kill people to blame it on the blacks".

The Helter Skelter theory is pure misdirection on the part of Bug.
Example: (I'll paraphrase - I don't know quotes by heart).

Flynn/Watkins/Kasabian : Charlie used to say the blacks would uprise and take the power from whitey. It'd would all be comming down fast just like the music says, confusion.

Now there is nothing incriminating in that statement, as it reads at all. But if you were to put a sweeping statement in front of it as the DA did, eg

Vincent: CHARLES MANSON HATED BLACKS AND WANTED TO START A RACE WAR BECAUSE HE HEARD MESSAGES IN BEATLE SONGS.

Now imagine hearing my original quote straight after that.

Flynn/Watkins/Kasabian : Charlie used to say the blacks would uprise and take the power from whitey. It'd would all be comming down fast just like the music says, confusion.

It now reads like Bug's complete speculation is being backed up and given creedence when in reality, it is nothing more than hearsay.

This is how lawyers often win cases, not with cold hard facts but by malnipulating words to back up whatever point of view they want you to think.

MrPoirot said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly20Q5sBH94

She explains helter skelter in this youtube. Gypsy plainly knew about Charlie's prophecy taken off the White Album. To say Gypsy was oblivious to the Helter Skelter thing is being off the mark.