Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [steiner] Charles Manson, aka Jesus Christ

Expand Messages
  • John Massengale
    Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
      Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?

      >
      >At night, during my school break, I've been pouring over old, freaky
      >Charles Manson interviews posted at YouTube, some of which I haven't
      >seen in 15 or 20 years. While watching them I made the following
      >observations.
      >
      >If you observe closely, you'll notice Charlie will sometimes start
      >referring to himself in the third person, almost as if a deity is
      >speaking through him. During these times he communicates from the
      >perspective of a god looking down upon humanity from a great height.
      >The spectacle is bizarre.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Charlie speaks so often out of this "dual identity" that you
      >begin to wonder who the real Charles Manson is, beyond the image he has
      >of himself of being a god.
      >
      >Over the years his interviewers have been awful. Geraldo Rivera
      >constantly assails Charlie with questions that force Manson into a
      >defensive position. Consequently, Charlie rarely speaks out of his own
      >heart. He's always mirroring what the interviewers say, bouncing
      >their ideas back at them for the purpose of defending himself from their
      >attacks. Charlie is a master at "mirroring".
      >
      >In one interview, when asked who the true Charlie Manson is, Manson
      >replies by forming a series of facial expressions. In a matter of
      >seconds he expresses a diverse number of self identities, then admits
      >that he's all these faces, and none of these face, that he's
      >"a hobo and a jug of wine," but ultimately a nothing: a tramp.
      >
      >This void-ness in his personality makes him an ideal medium. The viewer
      >observing these interviews can intuit certain fluctuations in his
      >personality that suggests spiritual possession. I classify him as a
      >medium because Charlie himself doesn't seem to recognize these
      >transitions in his identity. He fluctuates back and forth
      >unconsciously, without sensing a true self, an I AM, within the complex
      >web.
      >
      >This second self of his, this God-Manson, was formed by LSD, peyote,
      >mescaline, pot and various other drugs that subjected his soul to
      >entities occupying the supersensible realm.
      >
      >This "self", this God-Manson, is responsible for the
      >murders—I believe.
      >
      >God-Manson is the persecuted identity that believes that it is his
      >divine duty to seek retribution upon mankind by killing them wholesale.
      >He is the force behind Helter Skelter
      >
      >
      >
      >** If anyone is interested in viewing these Charles Manson videos, go
      >ahead and visit my "playlist" at YouTube
      ><http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=mmorrell1> . Look under
      >"interviews".
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Mathew Morrell
      ... Actually, it would have been more accurate for me to have said that Manson referred to himself in the first person when referring to God. An example
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
        I wrote:
        > If you observe closely, you'll notice Charlie will
        > sometimes start referring to himself in the third person. . .

        Actually, it would have been more accurate for me to have said that
        Manson referred to himself in the "first person" when referring to
        God. An example would be when he scolds humanity for polluting His
        rivers and streams--as though Manson created them.
      • Mathew Morrell
        ... Why wouldn t a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits to spiritual science? I don t get it. Criminology is a passion of mine. Should I not
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
          John Massengale wrote concerning my Charles Manson piece:

          > Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?

          Why wouldn't a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits to
          spiritual science? I don't get it. Criminology is a passion of mine.
          Should I not post my ideas on this subject, because it makes New Agers
          feel uncomfortable?
        • John Massengale
          ... And dachshunds are a passion of mine, but I don t discuss them here. I didn t say it s off limits. I asked why what you wrote is appropriate for a Steiner
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
            >John Massengale wrote concerning my Charles Manson piece:
            >
            >> Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?
            >
            >Why wouldn't a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits to
            >spiritual science? I don't get it. Criminology is a passion of mine.

            And dachshunds are a passion of mine, but I don't discuss them here.

            I didn't say it's off limits. I asked why what you wrote is appropriate for a Steiner list.

            >Should I not post my ideas on this subject, because it makes New Agers
            >feel uncomfortable?

            Since you frequently write about your disdain for New Agers, that's meant as an insult. But I'm not a New Ager.

            And you didn't answer why your post is appropriate for a Steiner list. Is there any insight from Steiner or to anthroposophy?
          • Durward Starman
            ******* You could think of it as a case study of Lucifer. Starman www.DrStarman.com To: steiner@yahoogroups.comFrom: tma4cbt@juno.comDate: Tue, 8 Jan 2008
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
              ******* You could think of it as a case study of Lucifer.

              Starman

              www.DrStarman.com



              To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              From: tma4cbt@...
              Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:47:09 +0000
              Subject: [steiner] Re: Charles Manson, aka Jesus Christ

              John Massengale wrote concerning my Charles Manson piece:

              > Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?

              Why wouldn't a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits to
              spiritual science? I don't get it. Criminology is a passion of mine.
              Should I not post my ideas on this subject, because it makes New Agers
              feel uncomfortable?





              Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. Start now!
            • Mathew Morrell
              ... to ... mine. ... appropriate for a Steiner list. ... Agers ... meant as an insult. But I m not a New Ager. ... list. Is there any insight from Steiner or
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 7, 2008
                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, John Massengale <john@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > >John Massengale wrote concerning my Charles Manson piece:
                > >
                > >> Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?
                > >
                > >Why wouldn't a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits
                to
                > >spiritual science? I don't get it. Criminology is a passion of
                mine.
                >
                > And dachshunds are a passion of mine, but I don't discuss them here.
                >
                > I didn't say it's off limits. I asked why what you wrote is
                appropriate for a Steiner list.
                >
                > >Should I not post my ideas on this subject, because it makes New
                Agers
                > >feel uncomfortable?
                >
                > Since you frequently write about your disdain for New Agers, that's
                meant as an insult. But I'm not a New Ager.
                >
                > And you didn't answer why your post is appropriate for a Steiner
                list. Is there any insight from Steiner or to anthroposophy?
                >

                Again I don't understand your problem with my Manson piece. Why
                does a piece on Charles Manson have to have "insight from Steiner
                or anthroposophy?" Anthroposophy isn't a cult. I have my own
                insights and ideas concerning a whole range of topics, and I don't
                see any conflict between these ideas and anthroposophy. This forum
                is about Anthroposophists like us getting together and exploring each
                other's ideas on things, not regurgitating the past.

                Besides, serial killer hardly existed in Steiner's time, so how am I
                supposed to include Steiner's thoughts on mass murder in my piece?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.