Thought crimes

Manson, portrayed at his trial as a drug-crazed loner with mesmerizing powers of persuasion, ordered devotees to carry out random killings in wealthy white neighborhoods in an effort to trigger an apocalyptic race war.

Not many newspapers use 34 words in a single sentence, using 6 adjectives to colour their message. The Age obviously caters for an educated audience, capable of digesting this abstract description. The Herald Sun would have probably used more specific details, Manson's piercing, dark, gloomy eyes, Acid-head, violent blood-spattering killings, and so on.

This educated audience can easily identify with living in a wealthy white neighborhood, and most likely picks up on the religious connotations of the expression 'devotee'. Oh my fascist god, religiously misled drug-crazies randomly killing in white neighborhoods! This over-simplified implication distracts a bit from the frog-leaps in reasoning connected to the Manson case.

The Age calls Manson a mass-murderer, even though he had not committed any of murders he got accused of, and he did not kill Sharon Tate. Hidden in the middle of this propaganda piece we can find out about Manson's crime: He ordered his 'devotees' to carry out random killings.

After heaps of fear inducing ramblings the powers of reasoning of the typical audience will linger somewhere in the basement, neglecting habitually the quest for facts, which are admittedly relatively sparse in most mass media products. So let's get back to the facts: Manson ordered his devotees to carry out killings. This time only, we step back from the fear of living in a target area, instead, we play crime writer and try to see the perpetrators perspective.

The Age offers a bit of help in elucidating (or rather clouding) the 'how' of Manson's crime: he used his mesmerising powers of persuasion (which obviously failed the judge and jury badly during his trial). We won't find out any more this mesmerising powers, especially how Manson, a drug-crazed loner, acquired this extraordinary interpersonal skills.

How does one order a murder usually? That depends a lot on the moral compass underlying the definition of murder. I consider sending troops into a foreign country 'ordering murder', I don't subscribe to the inevitable loss of innocent life in war situation as 'casualties'. I also have no problem calling the death sentence ordered murder.

While the former forms of 'order to carry out murders' are not covered by any judicial system I know of, hiring a hitman certainly fits both mine and legal systems understanding of this offense. Murder for money encompasses a commercial transaction (henchmen and soldiers get paid....), and holding both sides of the contract responsible seems totally justified.

Manson did not pay any money, he used his 'mesmerising powers of persuasion' to 'order random killings'. If I had a dollar for each time I heard somebody in a pub or similar situation expressing his desire to randomly kill someone, I would be very, very rich. I had no need to work for the rest of my life if the same would apply to media products - each time Rudd justifies the random murders in Afghanistan would fill my account.

Rudd doesn't use mesmerising powers to order random killings, but a large administration and a sanitising language that disguises killings as casualties. All the promises to minimise loss of civilian life failed badly in the 21st century, more than a million killed Iraqis, hundred thousands of dead Afghanis confirm a lesson from history persistently ignored: Each war involves terror acts against a civilian population.

The 'how' of Charles Manson evil crime remains a mystery. As a pacifist, I despise every war, and I certainly feel absolutely unattracted by the idea of an 'apocalyptic race war'. The perspective of fighting in a war does not stop many Australian from joining the army, it seems like some people want to be in a war situation (the recruitment ad's of Australia war machinery make it look a bit like a bunch of high-tech salvos, and leave out the bloody bits).

'Apocalyptic race war' seems to make no sense, this term reminds me a lot of Palestine. Any war is unreasonable, the sad fact that mankind hasn't abandoned this evolutionary obstacle shows the lack of importance of reason in affairs of society. Any war requires various leaps of faith, usually explained with COWDUNG (conventional wisdom of the dominating group).

Benbrika ostensibly planned a 'war on Australian people', with essential support from ASIO. Given their lack of talent in producing terror weapons, it's hard to say whether these people were sufficiently mesmerised by the persuasive powers of Australia secret terror force to go all the way. Nothing but a thought crime. Killing someone is by far not easy, some biologists claim the existence of a 'pre-programmed' inhibition for interspecies killing (that's why war propagandists use a language that dehumanises their victims, killing vermin is easier than killing humans).

Manson did less than ASIO, he didn't provided training, intelligence, money and weapons. As a 'drug-crazed loner' he most likely ranted a lot about his ideas about society with his 'family', which mostly fits into the description of criminal organisation. I'm still mesmerised by the distortion of facts, and the shameless fear mongering of The Age, but not powerfully persuaded by their vilification of Manson.