Now see, this just goes to prove you can't have lovable psychopaths like the Joker in real life. He isn't seen as brutal but eccentric and funny, he's just seen as a flat-out creepy monster with no redeeming qualities what so ever.

perhaps 'lovable' isn't the adjective i'd have used to describe the joker...

Ha, that's awesome. Just because he chose to give his answer in a sentence of gestures and expressions is no reason to be afraid of him...

that's creepy. That's actually, verbatim (?), my answer to that question too.

Did anyone else think he was about to kill the guy at first when he lunged forward?

*dark

Adding video to channels (Dark) - requested by calvados.

I heart Charlie.

>> ^K0MMIE:
Did anyone else think he was about to kill the guy at first when he lunged forward?


Yep =|

Can I please upvote this again? And again? And once more?

I'll say it again...

I heart Charlie.

His autobiography is excellent, by the way. But don't take my word for it. Check it out!

Hold on a tick, did that guy just ham it up?

i think what he's trying to say is:

There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman. Some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusionary. And although I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable. I simply am not there.

Charles Manson was also and excellent dancer and vocal stylist. http://www.videosift.com/video/He-May-Have-Been-Evil-But-He-Was-An-Excellenct-Scat-Singer

>> ^Lithic:
Hold on a tick, did that guy just ham it up?


Damnit! When I saw that for some reason I was convinced I would be the only person to notice the downright eerie resemblance. Good job.

Manson is the poster boy for why a good social welfare system is a must.

Anyone would be seriously f*cked up after his childhood, but he could have turned out way, way less deranged and troubled if there had been foster care or GOOD care of any sort available for him when his down and out mum tried to put him in care.

Having a mother who sold you for a pitcher of beer is going to screw up any kid's self esteem, but get that kid into a caring environment of others who he can bond with and develop some self respect from and respect for and you'll have a far, far better individual for it.

Rather than a Manson who developed a hatred of the justice system (from his frequent incarcerations), and an inability to love/be loved thanks to never having anyone who cared for him as a child.

Which I guess can lead to the need for outrageous acts from people to 'prove' their love for him because he'd never believe it any other way.

I think he should be pitied on a huge scale and learned from rather than feared.

And thinker... please, enlighten us as to why you love him? Really, what do you love about him, don't want to feed the troll at all, but if you want people to bite, I think you'd better explain why you 'heart' him so much.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^Well put spoco. Monsters like this don't come out of a vacuum. Society failed Charles Manson when he was a kid - the rest if blow back.

That does't absolve personal responsibility but it's important to find the roots.

^Oh, absolutely, it doesn't absolve personal responsibility at all, everyone has that to answer to. BUT, people like to look at people like Manson and right them off as 'a monster, inhuman, just different, evil' etc. etc. and wash their hands of it all. They don't like to admit that many more people could turn out a lot more like Manson if given a terrible, unloving upbringing and then further that with no support, no catching of that, and barbaric 'rehabilitation' when they invariably rob someone to get food...

They don't like to think that perhaps they are partly to blame by ignoring it as an issue and voting in politicians who think 'everyone should pay their own way', and get rid of all social systems that are supposed to help kids like he was.

Yeah, he's the type of person that the guys in the shower and laundry room wouldn't touch with a 10-ft pole.

He never killed anyone. He should not be in prison.

An acquaintance of mine corresponds with Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins, but Charles Manson has never replied to him. Few people creep me out as much as Charles Manson.

Man, he reminds me of someone on the Sift. Trying to remember who, though... um... on the tip of my tongue... Oh well, I'll let you know if it comes to me.

>> ^spoco2:
And thinker... please, enlighten us as to why you love him? Really, what do you love about him, don't want to feed the troll at all, but if you want people to bite, I think you'd better explain why you 'heart' him so much.


I really have to agree with this. That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Unless you also support people needlessly dieing in terrible ways...

Ok... I'm gonna do it.........


*comedy

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by MarineGunrock.

Don't act like none of you laughed.

We put rabid dogs to sleep. This clown deserves the same.

Alright, an answer to those who think I'm trolling or simply stating something stupid by saying I heart Manson.

First of all, I follow serial killer history very closely, as it intrigues me. How can it not intrigue you when a societal misfit destroys what you call normalcy?

Second, I think he's a crazy character, and I like that. Don't tell me you haven't seen George Carlin make silly faces like those in this video.

And most importantly, as I mentioned to laura, I like his Pied Piper-style of leadership. He took suburban white kids from good homes and he listened to them--something their parents didn't do. They were no longer comfortable in the society in which they were raised, so he offered them the chance to leave it all behind and live at the ranch. They lived in a commune, helping each other with their everyday needs; totally dependent on each other for survival.

They had crazy parties and orgies, enjoying every minute of their hedonistic lives, until Charlie mentioned that a black man had just been killed after an altercation, and a race war would be starting soon. So what did the kids do? Did they run away from this raving lunatic and go back to their cookie-cutter lives in the work-a-day world? No, they joined together and did unspeakable acts of violence.

So tell me, who is to blame for the Tate-LaBianca murders? The killers, or the lunatic fringe father-figure?

Don't we give medals to soldiers? Don't we pay them to kill dark people around the world? Don't we give them a heroes' welcome when they arrive back home after bombing villages?

Don't tell me that society hates Charlie Manson for telling a bunch of drugged-out hippies to kill people. Society hates him because he went his own way and dictated orders on his own terms. That's why he's in prison for the rest of his life when he never laid a finger on the victims. He was the four-star general who ordered his troops into battle, and they willingly followed his orders, because that's what a good soldier does. He's an American hero, but outside of the boundaries of what we call "normal." And that's why he's hated. And that's why I like him, because he's an odd duck.

Calling Charles Manson an odd duck is like calling Hitler an eccentric idealist.

^Troll

It's the same sort of reasoning which says we should go after John Gotti, and let the man who killed at least 19 people walk scot-free for his testimony against Gotti, for a prosecution of one murder.

my interpretation of that answer was "childish".

Don't tell me that society hates Charlie Manson for telling a bunch of drugged-out hippies to kill people. Society hates him because he went his own way and dictated orders on his own terms. That's why he's in prison for the rest of his life when he never laid a finger on the victims.

Society hates Charles Manson because he told a bunch of drugged-out hippies to kill people and they actually did it. What's more frightening and dangerous someone who kills people or someone who has a bunch of other people who'll kill for them? It's not like Manson being in jail for life for that is an exception, its the rule. Someone hires a hitman to kill somebody, the hitman isn't the only one charged with murder. Same for Gotti and the other Mafia heads, they want them because they're the ones ordering all the hits. People who get their lovers to kill their spouses are charged with murder, though they never laid a finger on the person. In the military who do they most want to kill, the leaders of the other side.

Also I can't say I'm particularly impressed by someone who takes in the disenfranchised and lost, tells them what they want to hear and proceeds to use them for their own devices. BTW, that includes the military, religions, corporations, cults, and half the other shit going on, on the planet.

>> ^thinker247:
He was the four-star general who ordered his troops into battle, and they willingly followed his orders, because that's what a good soldier does. He's an American hero, but outside of the boundaries of what we call "normal." And that's why he's hated. And that's why I like him, because he's an odd duck.


Where's this "battle" you speak of? There was slaughter, but where is the fight? What is heroic about inciting people to kill innocents?

I would ask whether you know that Sharon Tate was 8½ months pregnant when she was slain, and that she begged her killers to allow her to give birth to her baby before they finished her, but you say you follow serial killers very closely, so of course you knew that, didn't you?

If you honestly admire Charles Manson, does that mean that you, too, want to incite others to carry out your harmful desires?

I don't recall ever stating anything about liking his actions. Don't read into something I said and find something I didn't say, then call it stupid. It makes you seem presumptuous and prejudicial.

>> ^iwastheturkey:
>>^spoco2:
And thinker... please, enlighten us as to why you love him? Really, what do you love about him, don't want to feed the troll at all, but if you want people to bite, I think you'd better explain why you 'heart' him so much.

I really have to agree with this. That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Unless you also support people needlessly dieing in terrible ways...

What is heroic about inciting people to kill innocents? Ask Paul Tibbets about killing 100,000 civilians for "the good of his country."

Of course I knew Sharon Tate was pregnant. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I don't have any harmful desires to incite others to fulfill. At least not anything I couldn't do myself, if I was so inclined. I admire him, not for the murders, but for his ability to bring people into his circle with his flair for personality. I also admire David Koresh, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, and a myriad of other people who found a way to trick the gullible. I don't admire what they did with their powers, but I still must applaud them for using people who are begging to be used.

The people I do not admire are those who followed the leaders. The gullible, the weak-minded, the easily-distracted lemmings who beg for anybody to relieve them of their need for self-guidance. I feel nothing but anger and contempt for people who sit on the edge of their seat, awestruck and dazed by the words of an orator. You know, the Germans of the early 20th century...many of the Obama supporters of today. Anybody who puts all of their hope into one person to guide them through treacherous waters, instead of navigating it themselves.

>> ^calvados:
>>^thinker247:
He was the four-star general who ordered his troops into battle, and they willingly followed his orders, because that's what a good soldier does. He's an American hero, but outside of the boundaries of what we call "normal." And that's why he's hated. And that's why I like him, because he's an odd duck.

Where's this "battle" you speak of? There was slaughter, but where is the fight? What is heroic about inciting people to kill innocents?
I would ask whether you know that Sharon Tate was 8½ months pregnant when she was slain, and that she begged her killers to allow her to give birth to her baby before they finished her, but you say you follow serial killers very closely, so of course you knew that, didn't you?
If you honestly admire Charles Manson, does that mean that you, too, want to incite others to carry out your harmful desires?

You mentioned hired killers and mobsters, but those transactions involve money. Sometimes money is an incentive, and is thus a catalyst for murder.

And if society really does hate him for telling the kids to do his bidding, that is a telling sign of a backward and misguided society. How can you hate somebody for simply telling people to do something? Charlie Manson could have told me to kill people, but I'm smarter than that. I know my morality is strong, and I wouldn't kill for him. So who is really to blame for the murders of seven people? Not the guy who ordered them, but the people who committed them. At any moment they could have told him they wouldn't do it. But they didn't, because they wanted to kill those people. I think they would have done it without Charlie Manson guiding them.

>> ^Crosswords:

Society hates Charles Manson because he told a bunch of drugged-out hippies to kill people and they actually did it. What's more frightening and dangerous someone who kills people or someone who has a bunch of other people who'll kill for them? It's not like Manson being in jail for life for that is an exception, its the rule. Someone hires a hitman to kill somebody, the hitman isn't the only one charged with murder. Same for Gotti and the other Mafia heads, they want them because they're the ones ordering all the hits. People who get their lovers to kill their spouses are charged with murder, though they never laid a finger on the person. In the military who do they most want to kill, the leaders of the other side.
Also I can't say I'm particularly impressed by someone who takes in the disenfranchised and lost, tells them what they want to hear and proceeds to use them for their own devices. BTW, that includes the military, religions, corporations, cults, and half the other shit going on, on the planet.

I'm very glad you have high moral standards and a strong will, not everyone does. In fact some people are pretty easily influenced by authority or their peers. And while this doesn't belay that these people are responsible for their actions it also doesn't exonerate those who push them into said actions. If somebody worships the ground I walk on, and I turn around and tell them to go kill some people, am I not responsible for how I used my influence over them? Isn't my influence and direction over them the catalyst? Again unless the influenced was coerced under extreme duress, they still retain responsibility for their action, but person who told them to is also responsible, it was their actions, their misuse of their power that caused the other person.

If a therapist tells a client, "wow you really don't have anything to live for, you should kill yourself", and the client does, is the therapist not responsible? Didn't they, in a position of authority, give the emotionally vulnerable client instructions to do something that would cause irreparable harm?

I would also like to add people can go to prison for conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody told you to kill someone, and you said no, then told the cops that person had tried to get you to kill someone and had solid evidence to the fact, that person is going to jail for a long time, if not life.

So I guess to sum things up, yes the people who actually did the killings were responsible for what they did, and as far as I know, none of them went free. But Manson, who directed them, is also responsible for his actions. You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

"How can you hate somebody for simply telling people to do something?"

Bush will be glad to hear he's absolved from the failings of his presidency, which were the sole responsibility of those lower down in the chain of command

If a therapist tells a client to kill themselves, and the client does so, that person didn't need to live. So in that case, I'd thank the therapist for ridding the earth of a weak person who took the advice of anybody in authority because they were too weak to make their own informed decisions. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If a leader orates beautifully about killing millions of Jews, but he is speaking to an empty room because everyone is at home enjoying time with their families and neighbors, where does his message go? Do six million people end up in gas chambers? It's the people who propel the leader, not his message. That is why I absolve the leader of much of the blame, but condemn the followers. If the German people hadn't been so easily manipulated by a flatulent meth addict because they were reeling from a devastating loss in World War I, Hitler would have been reduced to nothing.

Some people would argue that Hitler was just as much to blame as his followers, but he was just a man with ideas. He couldn't have sent ten million people to their deaths by himself. And Charles Manson couldn't have massacred seven people on his own, either.

You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

That depends on how well the Manson Family could bake.

Squeaky Fromme tried to assassinate Gerald Ford, if you recall. I don't think Manson told her to do that. Some people are just crazy on their own. Maybe the murders would have still occurred, but maybe not. *shrugs*

>> ^Crosswords:
I'm very glad you have high moral standards and a strong will, not everyone does. In fact some people are pretty easily influenced by authority or their peers. And while this doesn't belay that these people are responsible for their actions it also doesn't exonerate those who push them into said actions. If somebody worships the ground I walk on, and I turn around and tell them to go kill some people, am I not responsible for how I used my influence over them? Isn't my influence and direction over them the catalyst? Again unless the influenced was coerced under extreme duress, they still retain responsibility for their action, but person who told them to is also responsible, it was their actions, their misuse of their power that caused the other person.
If a therapist tells a client, "wow you really don't have anything to live for, you should kill yourself", and the client does, is the therapist not responsible? Didn't they, in a position of authority, give the emotionally vulnerable client instructions to do something that would cause irreparable harm?
I would also like to add people can go to prison for conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody told you to kill someone, and you said no, then told the cops that person had tried to get you to kill someone and had solid evidence to the fact, that person is going to jail for a long time, if not life.
So I guess to sum things up, yes the people who actually did the killings were responsible for what they did, and as far as I know, none of them went free. But Manson, who directed them, is also responsible for his actions. You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

Sorry Thinker, but your logic and adoration is all skewed beyond belief to me.

To have respect and admiration for people who have 'charisma' such as Manson, Koresh and Hubbard is pretty warped. You say yourself the only people that follow them are the weak and easily lead, so really, what are you applauding them for? The ability to be so self centered that they take advantage of the weak and pathetic for their own hedonistic and then violent needs?

Yeah, there's something to applaud.

I'd much more applaud someone who saw these people, saw how easily fooled and led they were and used their charisma and knowledge to, oh, I don't know... perhaps HELP THEM. Perhaps take the time to listen to them, to teach them the power of rational thought, to teach them self respect, to teach them respect for others, and perhaps teach them that they don't need some 'leader' figure to make their decisions for them. But be a big enough person that they don't NEED the adoration of others to feel any self worth in themselves. To be a complete enough person to be HAPPY when they stop listening to them and thank them and head out on their own to do better in the community.

I will never idolize, congratulate or think highly of any of the complete dicks you list as people you're fascinated by. Every one of them has serious personal issues and finds that the only way to feel good about themselves is to have hoards of gullible fools worship them.

You seem to be all about the personal responsibility and that if someone listens to someone else and does something bad, well, that's their own damn fault because their weak and foolish. Yeah, well, perhaps you should put some higher standards on those people who are learned, who do see how things work, and perhaps you should be far more annoyed at those people abusing the power and knowledge they have for personal sick means.

Geeze you have issues in the way you view the world.

Geeze you have issues in the way you view the world.

Don't we all?

--
Weak people cannot be trained to be strong. People do not change. I like people who are honest with themselves and know exactly who they are, even if their reality is a distorted view of society. I don't necessarily condone their actions in all circumstances, but I understand their motivation.

>> ^spoco2:
Sorry Thinker, but your logic and adoration is all skewed beyond belief to me.
To have respect and admiration for people who have 'charisma' such as Manson, Koresh and Hubbard is pretty warped. You say yourself the only people that follow them are the weak and easily lead, so really, what are you applauding them for? The ability to be so self centered that they take advantage of the weak and pathetic for their own hedonistic and then violent needs?
Yeah, there's something to applaud.
I'd much more applaud someone who saw these people, saw how easily fooled and led they were and used their charisma and knowledge to, oh, I don't know... perhaps HELP THEM. Perhaps take the time to listen to them, to teach them the power of rational thought, to teach them self respect, to teach them respect for others, and perhaps teach them that they don't need some 'leader' figure to make their decisions for them. But be a big enough person that they don't NEED the adoration of others to feel any self worth in themselves. To be a complete enough person to be HAPPY when they stop listening to them and thank them and head out on their own to do better in the community.
I will never idolize, congratulate or think highly of any of the complete dicks you list as people you're fascinated by. Every one of them has serious personal issues and finds that the only way to feel good about themselves is to have hoards of gullible fools worship them.
You seem to be all about the personal responsibility and that if someone listens to someone else and does something bad, well, that's their own damn fault because their weak and foolish. Yeah, well, perhaps you should put some higher standards on those people who are learned, who do see how things work, and perhaps you should be far more annoyed at those people abusing the power and knowledge they have for personal sick means.
Geeze you have issues in the way you view the world.

>> ^thinker247:
Geeze you have issues in the way you view the world.

Don't we all?
--
Weak people cannot be trained to be strong. People do not change. I like people who are honest with themselves and know exactly who they are, even if their reality is a distorted view of society. I don't necessarily condone their actions in all circumstances, but I understand their motivation.


'Weak' people can indeed be taught to have self respect and stop requiring the affirmations of others, they can be taught to respect their own thoughts and actions. To say otherwise is having an extremely negative and defeatist view of the world. People DO indeed change, but I suppose if your primary reading and interest is in sociopaths, then maybe you might think otherwise as all you're reading about is those that don't... or do they? I would suggest that people aren't born into being this way, but are shaped into it via their childhood, Manson being a prime example of a childhood that would ruin most anyone. To say that people don't change is to suggest that he would have turned out exactly the same way no matter how he was brought up, which is an outright falsehood.

To me it sounds far too much like you wish you could turn off guilt and social responsibility in your head and act like these people, solely having regard for themselves.

Which is a pretty sad way to be, admiring those in our world who hate the rest ... I prefer to admire those that do GOOD and strive to make the world a better place through helping others, not by killing off those that disagree with us.

charles mansion proves that with proper conditioning a group of people can be made to do damning things.

Milgrams Experiment any one? People can and will be manipulated every day, will you be one of them? We should all strive to free our minds.

Ever wonder why the testing rooms for standardized tests have only one clock in them? Or no clock at all? Or One very loud clock?

How funny, the weak minded and weak willed still heart manson and find him admirable, just like in the '60's and '70's.

One act i DO find praiseworthy:
"On September 25, 1984, while imprisoned at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, Manson was severely burned by a fellow inmate who poured paint thinner on him and set him alight."

LOL. I've heard he's separated from the general population because his fellow victims of society kept beating the shyt out of him.

Apparently the other psychopaths in these places aren't as gullible and naive as some in this thread.

I find it interesting that you label him a psychopath, yet you praise the act of pouring paint thinner on him and setting him on fire. Good job.

>> ^Memorare:
How funny, the weak minded and weak willed still heart manson and find him admirable, just like in the '60's and '70's.
One act i DO find praiseworthy:
"On September 25, 1984, while imprisoned at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, Manson was severely burned by a fellow inmate who poured paint thinner on him and set him alight."
LOL. I've heard he's separated from the general population because his fellow victims of society kept beating the shyt out of him.
Apparently the other psychopaths in these places aren't as gullible and naive as some in this thread.

You caught me. I actually agree with what you just said, but that's still not why I admire Charles Manson.

Destroying society really sounds like fun sometimes. But I don't know if it will be hatred or sheer boredom that will drive me out one day. Watch your nightly news to find out!

>> ^spoco2:
To me it sounds far too much like you wish you could turn off guilt and social responsibility in your head and act like these people, solely having regard for themselves.

Milgrams Experiment any one?

Actually the scariest thing about the Milgram experiment is the people weren't conditioned, at least not by the experimenters, they went in and obeyed the closest thing to authority.

I'd hazard a guess there's a genetic/evolutionary component to that, kind of like how people are programed to see faces in things, there's a component that compels us to obey authority.

If hitler never actually put his hands on a person or committed an offence other than ordering others to do his bidding, is he innocent also?

If you see it as a war, he is probably therefore guilty of warcrimes and would be put to death anyway? (War crimes perhaps being mass murder, mistreatment of civilians/prisoners?)

Humans in general evolved to be social creatures. Our main evolutionary advantage was the whole "big brain" track, and while that makes us able to plan for the future, create new things etc, its not much for survival on a purely physical scale.

Thus to compensate for this, we ended up banding together, depending on each other for protection and survival. This leads to any particular group needing a leader in order for the group to perform effectively as a single unit without being so disparate in their goals as to accomplish nothing since everyone is doing their own thing instead of building for the community.

Keep in mind that this is from a purely evolutionary standpoint, obviously we have advanced enough we can have a democracy and such, but the core is still there. Deep down in all humans is the "need" for a leader, and occasionally is the "need" to lead. It was built into us over countless generations of a communal group with a leader being more effective at surviving the harsh realities of life in the early days of human life.

Being a leader means having a responsibility to lead your people effectively, and properly. If you are a leader and you order your people to do something, you are just as responsible as the person is for whatever actions result from that. To say that a person is "weak" or foolish or anything because they were following orders is perhaps true in some cases, but the degree to which you go Thinker is way past that which could be accepted.

It does not absolve the people who committed the act itself in any way, but the leader himself is just as responsible, just as guilty. The fact that these people were great leaders is intriguing perhaps, but its not what they HAD (charisma, leadership, etc) but what they DID with it that makes them monsters. A knife can cut food for a cooking pot to feed the homeless, or it can kill the homeless. Its what you do with it that makes it one thing or the other. And yes many people ARE in fact tools who don't want or like to think for themselves. Its not admirable but its true. That doesn't mean whoever is using the tools can do anything he wants with them and not be responsible for it.

The reporter asked for a one sentance answer. He did get one.

thinker, you're weak. by saying you admire Charlie because he can manipulate people, you've let him manipulate you.

"Manson is the poster boy for why a good social welfare system is a must."
No!??....Wrong!??..In an idyllic world perhaps, of one's own design...and according to what is expected in a "functional" "society"...we're on the third planet, monkey-boy....not the one where we care for and nurture psychopaths, and keep em' alive....and post videos of their fame......so idgits can say "Ewwwwwww!" Oh wait....sorry, dinna make this place, was simply dropped off here-...........dumbasses!!! One word answer to a one word question.....

You don't let people manipulate you. Try again.

>> ^White:
thinker, you're weak. by saying you admire Charlie because he can manipulate people, you've let him manipulate you.

As another close follower of serial killer history, I must say that Charles Manson is by far one of the most disturbing killers ever. I have no sympathy for him, although I'm not so sure about Leslie Van Houten.

"Non teneas aurum totum quod splendet ut aurum."

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by mauz15.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

*downvote

Fake crazy, I can't believe this guy is still alive!

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by kronosposeidon.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Maybe I am the only one that found this funny, but:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Bobby-Knight-Channels-Charles-Manson

Bobby Knight Channels Charles Manson has been added as a related post - related requested by silvercord.

He's like the jungie that Werner Herzog loves against his better judgement.