209 words
Charlie Manson (1934–2017)
1.
Well, Charlie Manson’s dead,
just like poor Sharon Tate.
Upon his wrinkled head
above his eyes, the fate,
of his tattooed Swastika
is certain, after so,
so many years. The shiksa,
pale as November snow,
with her stab wounds still red,
has slammed the gates of hell.
And no, we’ll not forget
for we recall her well.
2.
Old Charlie Manson was
no Krakow Ghetto Jew.
Deranged, demonic laws
left him with a loose screw.
He’d rotted in his cell
and read Saint Paul per chance,
while Roman lived to tell,
though fugitive in France.
Dearest Samantha Jane,
sodomized at thirteen,
forgotten is your pain,
the venom of our spleen.
20 November 2017
Mulholland Drive
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
—Sigmund Freud
No, it was neither Clinton
nor Bleistein with a cigar,
but Weinstein at the bar,
wanking for Quentin,
his shiksa catatonic,
her mouth agape in shock
at the sight of his shmok.
Cynical, ironic,
the movie-maker groaned
and shot his chosen load,
thinking it’s what’s owed
pale starlets bought and owned.
Was he misunderstood,
both horny and Semitic?
Or was it the esthetic
of moguls in Hollywood?
Who cares his deeds were vile?
In therapeutic heaven
with bugger-them-all Kevin,
never will he stand trial.
19 November 2017
11 Comments
Good to read some positive words about Manson for once. He’s a man much demonized, and as much by the right as by the left. It’s understandable that the left should revile him, since he killed (or more precisely, was held responsible for killing) the wife of a Jew, but the revulsion the right has for Manson is harder to comprehend. You’d think they might apply the axiom, which they are so willing to do in other cases, that there simply has to be something good about anyone so hated by their enemies. But of course, they don’t. No, even though they realize a negro might break into their house tomorrow and choke them to death with their own intestines, and he’d get out of prison in seven years (if he didn’t get off scot-free, like OJ), Manson — supposedly a dangerous menace to society even at the age of 80 — had to be held captive for life. In fact, he spent almost his entire life behind bars. He was very much a creation of the system. If he was a monster, the system created him and made him so.
Despite the swastika tattoo, most on the right don’t realize that Manson was a racist and a white supremacist. His attempt to start a race war with the Tate-La Bianca murders seems hare-brained in retrospect, but in the context of the times — the numerous race riots, the Kerner Commission report blaming negro failure and civil unrest on whites, the recent assassination of MLK, etc. — it might actually have worked.
I think what scared them the most though was Manson’s power over his women. He was one white man who didn’t get the word that white women were henceforth to be the property of negroes and Jews. He didn’t bow down and accept it like all the good white Christian citizens did back in the 60s, and still do today. That got them scared, and very pissed off. That’s why he had to be made an example of; why Manson’s name became synonymous with evil.
Sure, that must have been the reason, not that he ruled over a harem of drug fueled, brainwashed, drop-out, borderline psycho hippie chicks whom he pushed into murder, mayhem and insanity.
Manson was a pimp and all pimps have power over their women. The women/girls he collected around him were already deranged and fucked out before he got hold of them.
Vincent Bugliosi concocted the race war motive to inflame the jury and the public so he might get a conviction. He had no direct evidence against Manson and very little on the other participants either. Manson wasn’t a racist. In fact he saw blacks as oppressed and they naturally would one day arise against the man or establishment. Bugliosi said that Manson wanted to blame the killings on blacks thus start a race war. Well…no. There was one feeble attempt at blaming blacks and that was the black power paw left at Hinman’s crime scene. Susan Atkins said this was sort of an after thought.
When the killers drove off to Tate’s for the murders Charlie told the girls to ‘leave something witchy ‘. He did not say, ‘leave something to implicate blackie’. What Charlie seems to have been thinking was to engineer the murders as an example to blacks as to how easy their uprising could be. If anything Manson saw blacks as de facto partners in the fight against society.
If there is anything to admire about Manson it was that he lived by his code. He didn’t grovel and beg the state for favors. “You have your rules and laws and you call that justice. I have my rules and laws and I call that god.” “Now, brother, are we in the truth?”
Where are the positive words about Manson?
My apologies if I’ve misconstrued you, but your poem, set beside the included photo of Manson looking like a choir boy and not a crazed lunatic, seemed to me to be somewhat sympathetic. You call Sharon Tate a shiksa and send her to hell, which suggests she deserved her fate, and blame “demonic laws” for Manson’s supposedly loose screw instead of his own inherent evil, which is the usual thing. It’s like you don’t get it. As a white man who rebelled and wouldn’t conform, Manson is evil, EVIL, EEEEEEEEEEVIL! He deserved to be tortured forever, and anyone who doesn’t understand that by now needs a trip to the re-education camp.
Perhaps your intent was to highlight the difference in the way Manson was treated versus Polanski. In re the (Samantha Jane) Geimer case though, where was the mother, and where was the father? The mother at least knew or should have known what was going on, and allowed it, probably even encouraged it. Typical stage mother behavior. If you want your daughter to be a star, there’s a price to be paid, and evidently she was willing to pay it.
As for your second poem, the current moral panic about sexual harassment in Hollywood, and in the culture generally, is an ironic thing for the racial right to join in. It’s a feminist cause. Are you a feminist? Or have I misconstrued you again?
“You call Sharon Tate a shiksa and send her to hell, which suggests she deserved her fate, and blame “demonic laws” for Manson’s supposedly loose screw instead of his own inherent evil, which is the usual thing. It’s like you don’t get it.”
Tate slammed the gates of hell on Manson. You are projecting your own thoughts and feeling into the poem, or you are just an agent provocateur, using terms like “racist” and “white supremacist,” which no person of the new right would ever use.
Tate was a shiksa. “Demonic” laws means the laws of genetics. Charlie inherited bad genes. And he was clearly nuts.
TO APENECK SWEENEY
In what you write and ask
I smell the reek of herring,
matza balls… Your task
is subtle, almost daring,
to feign to be a kook,
“a white supremacist.”
No random or stray fluke
is your each phrase, the gist
of which is to smear us
in the foul broth and mire
of each Talmudic word.
But no, you won’t steer us,
only kindle fire
in photos grey and blurred.
22 November 2017
Thanks Leo. Brilliant as always.
Yeah, let’s hear a few positive words about the insanity of the Tate-LaBianca-massacres, and about some malicious narcissist who was basically the king of sociopathic mind-fucking.
My question “Where are the positive words about Manson?” was to Apeneck Sweeney. There are no positive words in my poem.
Manson was just as you describe, Petronius.
But what of Polanski and his victim, Samantha Jane?
I’m a bit surprised that Counter Currents hasn’t explored the role of Sharon Tate in the movie, The Eye of the Devil. This is one of the earliest movies I can remember seeing – and it’s pagan/pantheistic themes appealed to me, even as a child. Whatever Tate’s domestic arrangements, her role in this ultra-traditional movie deserves respect.