Did Charles Manson wreck the Boom Awakening?

[pbrower2a]

Now that Charles Manson is dead, we may be able to ask ourselves whether he killed more than the victims of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

The Manson was everything wrong about the counterculture, with mass murder added. Manson was of course a criminal  with delusions not only of his talent as a singer-songwriter but also that he could start a great crime wave, "Helter-Skelter".

His cult adopted the anti-establishment garb and superficial rhetoric of the Boom counterculture. Manson took the role of a Silent mentor, if in a perverse way. He used the ways of the criminal upon people that he could get to become True Believers in himself and his cause. Kill white people, leave rhetoric of the Black Power movement, and let black people get blamed. The Manson cult failed at convincing people that black people did the crime.

Charles Manson is a prime example of a sociopath. There were some very confused people who joined their cult, and Manson had answers for them -- the wrong answers, to be sure, but answers for people who had found none. He found young adults with problems and gave them a bigger problem.

He disgraced the counterculture as nobody else could. After Manson, the Boom Awakening became largely a celebration of indulgence. We may have a great divide between early-wave Boomers who often got all the advantages, and later Boomers who, born in the 1950s, got experiences unlikely to lead to any coherent objective.  Note well that we have yet to have a President born in the 1950s.

[Eric the Green]

Good comments.

I'm thinking the next president may well have been born in the 1950s. And gray champions are supposed to be late-born prophets or prophet/nomad hybrids. I don't think Charles Manson could have stopped this cycle. Many people born in the 1950s had good experiences with the counter-culture, and young people continued to be influenced by it in a liberating and creative way during the 1970s and beyond, although this was increasingly true only in blue and especially coastal states.

I am predicting that Terry McAuliffe (11-2 horoscope score) has a good chance in 2020, and possibly Mitch Landrieu (15-2)-- especially if he wins higher office before 2020; and perhaps later on. These two guys were born in the late 1950s. I am saying the Democrats will need to nominate someone with a good horoscope score, or at least someone who otherwise gives evidence that (s)he can communicate empathically and theatrically, who is articulate, and gives people confidence in their leadership ability, relatability, optimism, positive or self-confident attitude, and stable strength of will and courage, even if this turns out to be illusory.

Candidates who have some of this kind of charisma win, while those who don't give evidence of these qualities, do not.

When Democrats nominate dull, wonkish, egghead intellectuals, they lose. Such candidates may appeal to Democrats, or Democrats may not care whether they don't have the other qualities, as long as they seem smart and competent. But the American people don't vote for them.

Democratic losers, with their horoscope scores, were all dull, wonkish intellectuals: Adlai Stevenson (5-21) (the original "egghead"), George McGovern (9-10), Walter Mondale (12-12), Michael Dukakis (2-10), Al Gore (10-9), John Kerry (8-12), Hillary R. Clinton (9-11).

Democratic winners had charisma enough to at least win once, or win a close election: FDR (21-4), Harry Truman (14-0), JFK (13-6), LBJ (8-6), Jimmy Carter (12-4), Bill Clinton (21-3), Barack Obama (19-2). Hubert Humphrey (9-5) barely lost.

Republican winners had folksy, all-American appeal and self-confidence, and were articulate, good debaters: Eisenhower (17-8), Nixon (18-7), Reagan (21-6), Bush 1 (14-6), George W. Bush (17-2), Donald Trump (9-4).

Republican losers were mean, dull or cold, even if they sometimes had a positive score: Hoover (11-11), Landon (10-16), Wilkie (8-9), Dewey (8-6), Goldwater (20-11), Ford (12-8), Dole (12-19). McCain (15-13), Romney (4-10).

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[pbrower2a]

Just to remind us of the brutal, sadistic crimes of the Manson 'family' nearly fifty years ago:

Quote:In August of 1969, a crazed, demented career criminal who led a ragtag band of followers that became known as the Manson Family, ordered members of his "family" to go to the former residence of an acquaintance, TV and record producer Terry Melcher, and massacre all those present. Manson hoped to become a professional musician-songwriter and had previously auditioned for Melcher, who had decided against signing him to a contract. Melcher, the son of actress/singer Doris Day, had moved from the home months before, but Manson continued with his plans to kill anyone found there regardless. His crazed band of hippies did precisely as the cold-blooded leader had ordered.

Motion picture director Roman Polanski shared the home at 10050 Cielo Drive, Bel Air, California (just outside Beverly Hills city limits) with his actress wife, Sharon Tate. Polanski was best known for his films Repulsion (1965), and Rosemary's Baby (1968), but would go on to even greater fame directing Chinatown (1974) and won the Academy Award for 2002's The Pianist. Actress Sharon Tate was best known for her work in Valley of the Dolls (1967).

Polanski was overseas the night of the first Manson killing spree. His pregnant wife was not so lucky. Sharon Tate was actually just days away from her expected delivery date. She was among those murdered, along with Steve Parent (Steven Earl Parent), Abigail Folger (heiress to the Folger coffee fortune), Jay Sebring (b. Thomas John Kummer) an internationally known hairstylist to the stars, and Wojciech Frykowski (frequently misspelled "Voytek Frykowski"), boyfriend of Abigail Folger. Each was killed in a particularly sadistic manner. The victims at the scene of the Tate killing spree, received a total of 102 stab wounds.

One day later, it happened again. Rosemary and Leno LaBianca were brutally murdered in the upper-middle-class Los Angeles neighborhood of Los Feliz. Leno was the president and chief stockholder of Gateway Markets, a small chain of profitable markets in the Los Angeles area, and his wife Rosemary LaBianca ran a successful boutique. Their home at 3301 Waverly Drive (address was later changed to 3311), was the scene of a gruesome pair of homicides. As with the previous victims, literally dozens of stab wounds were inflicted on the LaBianca's.

The grisly Tate-LaBianca murders resulted in a high-profile trial that drew international attention for months. Charles Manson was found guilty and sentenced to death. Other members of Manson's hippie cult who were put behind bars for their part in the crimes included, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten. Charles "Tex" Watson, was also found guilty, but in a separate trial. In 1972, the California Supreme Court abolished the death penalty and Manson's sentence was automatically reduced to life in prison. As a result, he's been up for parole many times, but thankfully the parole board has wisely denied parole each time.

In September 1975, one of Manson's followers made headlines following her assassination attempt on President Gerald R. Ford. Secret Service agents managed to seize Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme after she aimed a gun at President Ford, who was unharmed. She was sentenced to life in prison for the attempt on his life. Fromme later escaped from prison--reportedly to be closer to Manson--before being recaptured and sentenced to additional time behind bars. Despite receiving life in prison and additional jail time for her escape, Squeaky Fromme was actually released on parole in August 2009.

Long before his multiple murder convictions for the Tate-LaBianca killings, Manson had a lengthy criminal record stretching back to 1948. His extensive list of charges included armed robberies, arson, burglary, assault, mail theft, drug possession, forgery, credit card fraud, receiving stolen property, pimping, grand theft auto and numerous parole violations.

Decades later, the Manson murders continue to fascinate new generations. The Internet seems to have helped generate an allure and fascination in a generation too young to remember the bizarre and vicious murders and sensational trial. For some perverse reason, prisoner Manson has become something of a folk hero to some young people. He actually receives fan letters every day from people who oddly identify with him, or feel the convicted murderer is somehow "misunderstood." Appallingly there are apologists out there who suggest neither Manson nor his followers had anything to do with the killing spree. They claim Manson and his cohorts were framed. These arguments are, of course, absolute nonsense. Those convicted of the crimes have offered detailed accounts of the murders which were substantiated by the evidence found at each crime scene. Several of the murderers have not only confessed, but were initially proud of their crimes and had hoped to commit more murders. Manson himself has boasted of being responsible for more than 35 murders. Other members of the Manson Family agree that they killed between "35 to 40 people." When given the opportunity to appear before the press, the wild-eyed convict, his fanatical behavior and grand theatrics, still manage to make headlines.

The prosecutor of the case, Vincent Bugliosi, later wrote the best-selling book Helter Skelter, which offered an incredibly detailed look at the crimes, the participants, and subsequent trial. Bugliosi accurately observed, "The name Manson has become a metaphor for evil, and evil has its allure. Some people have the same fascination for Jack the Ripper and Hitler."

https://www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-Manson,Charles.html

[The Wonkette]

There was a dark side to the Awakening even without Charles Manson. There was Altamont, the Newark, DC, and Chicago Convention riots, Kent State,the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, Vietnam, drug overdoses, the Jonestown Massacre, lots of ugly things, and many of that preceded Charles Manson.

[pbrower2a]

(11-25-2017, 04:33 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: There was a dark side to the Awakening even without Charles Manson.  There was Altamont, the Newark, DC, and Chicago Convention riots, Kent State,the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, Vietnam, drug overdoses, the Jonestown Massacre, lots of ugly things, and many of that preceded Charles Manson.

Awakening eras begin with great optimism -- even if the opening event is the assassination of JFK. The urban riots were undeniably ominous. The disorder at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 certainly aided in the rise of Richard M. Nixon.  The Vietnam Waer was of course a mess, and one result of that military mess (leadership having no idea of how to present a war as a noble cause) was the Kent State massacre. Drugs, drugs, and more drugs? That was part of Manson.

"Peace, love, and dope" was far better as a dream than "murder, hate, and dope", as practiced in the Manson 'family'.

So was the mindless hedonism that became the norm in the middle-to-late 1970s.

[David Horn]

(11-26-2017, 12:36 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-25-2017, 04:33 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: There was a dark side to the Awakening even without Charles Manson.  There was Altamont, the Newark, DC, and Chicago Convention riots, Kent State,the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, Vietnam, drug overdoses, the Jonestown Massacre, lots of ugly things, and many of that preceded Charles Manson.

Awakening eras begin with great optimism -- even if the opening event is the assassination of JFK. The urban riots were undeniably ominous. The disorder at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 certainly aided in the rise of Richard M. Nixon.  The Vietnam Waer was of course a mess, and one result of that military mess (leadership having no idea of how to present a war as a noble cause) was the Kent State massacre. Drugs, drugs, and more drugs? That was part of Manson.

"Peace, love, and dope" was far better as a dream than "murder, hate, and dope", as practiced in the Manson 'family'.

So was the mindless hedonism that became the norm in the middle-to-late 1970s.

The Awakening had another feature too: innocence and zealotry.  When you put those two together, anyone not part of "the movement" will have the bejesus scared out of them.  That's pretty much what happened, and why the backlash was so much stronger than the movement it opposed.  The Silent Majority triggered the rise of the Evangelical movement and we're still working our way through that today.  Emotion trumps logic every time, and fear is the greatest emotional motivator.  It's one of the reasons I fear that today's SJWs are simply repeating that mistake yet again.  Let the White Nationalists make that mistake this time, and STFU about injustice ... just for a while.

[Eric the Green]

Of course those concerned about the justice being trampled by the reactionary, racist-tinged right-wing takeover of today. The resistance needs to be strong. Can it be strong, and yet not arouse as much fear among the silent majority? Progressives do somehow need to create the impression that they are interested in all of us moving beyond our current economic stagnation, which is why some "populists" of the genuine kind may have some appeal today in red states.

And there's the peculiar fact that America has become saddled with the biggest right-wing in the world; much of it in reaction to the sixties movements; but it had always been there. It was just challenged as never before. Racism always ruled the South, and Americans were always parochial and not very informed, and so they reacted to criticism by "hippies and anarchists" of our nation's wars with "love it or leave it." America always had some degree of the notion that its capitalism was superior to others' ways, and that self-reliance is what made America great. Many cling to Christianity as some kind of bedrock of truth beyond all question. This American reactionism just became more exaggerated after it was seriously challenged for the first time in the sixties. It's just something we need to deal with, and defeat as necessary politically, if we are ever to move forward, and become more like the advanced countries in northern Europe and the Anglosphere, instead of becoming more like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Honduras.

[Another Xer]

This thread seems to be missing a key component of the Boom Awakening. It was hugely successful in promoting Civil Rights and reducing racism and sexism (institutional and otherwise). It was also hugely successful in the view of a country's youth being fodder for war. The draft is probably right up there with social security in terms of things that politicians wouldn't touch (short of a real war of defense).

Charles Manson was a stain on the era but a reflection of the crazy extremes of the time. His cult has no impact on the bigger wins and losses of the Boom Awakening.

[TheNomad]

(11-21-2017, 12:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Now that Charles Manson is dead, we may be able to ask ourselves whether he killed more than the victims of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

The Manson was everything wrong about the counterculture, with mass murder added. Manson was of course a criminal  with delusions not only of his talent as a singer-songwriter but also that he could start a great crime wave, "Helter-Skelter".

His cult adopted the anti-establishment garb and superficial rhetoric of the Boom counterculture. Manson took the role of a Silent mentor, if in a perverse way. He used the ways of the criminal upon people that he could get to become True Believers in himself and his cause. Kill white people, leave rhetoric of the Black Power movement, and let black people get blamed. The Manson cult failed at convincing people that black people did the crime.

Charles Manson is a prime example of a sociopath. There were some very confused people who joined their cult, and Manson had answers for them -- the wrong answers, to be sure, but answers for people who had found none. He found young adults with problems and gave them a bigger problem.

He disgraced the counterculture as nobody else could. After Manson, the Boom Awakening became largely a celebration of indulgence. We may have a great divide between early-wave Boomers who often got all the advantages, and later Boomers who, born in the 1950s, got experiences unlikely to lead to any coherent  objective.  Note well that we have yet to have a President born in the 1950s.

There are so many good threads here!  I missed the list entirely.  I want to discuss this one so I'm replying to it and will add more another time.  Unless there is a way to "flag" a thread to remind yourself to re-visit.  lil help?

[beechnut79]

(11-25-2017, 04:33 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: There was a dark side to the Awakening even without Charles Manson.  There was Altamont, the Newark, DC, and Chicago Convention riots, Kent State,the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, Vietnam, drug overdoses, the Jonestown Massacre, lots of ugly things, and many of that preceded Charles Manson.

Wouldn't you have to include the epidemic of sexual assault which brought down Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and many others as part of the Awakening and Sexual Revolution's dark side as well? In that time frame it was largely camouflaged by the idea of uncondtional love together among all man(woman)kind.

[beechnut79]

(04-18-2018, 06:04 PM)Another Xer Wrote: This thread seems to be missing a key component of the Boom Awakening.  It was hugely successful in promoting Civil Rights and reducing racism and sexism (institutional and otherwise).  It was also hugely successful in the view of a country's youth being fodder for war.  The draft is probably right up there with social security in terms of things that politicians wouldn't touch (short of a real war of defense).  

Charles Manson was a stain on the era but a reflection of the crazy extremes of the time.  His cult has no impact on the bigger wins and losses of the Boom Awakening.

What would you place on both the credit and debit sides of the era's ledger?