Disgraced Former President Donald Trump has finally submitted his entry in the “People Who Tried to Ignite a Race War” League’s competition for Best Scowl in a Mug Shot. How does he stand up to the reigning champion for over five decades, California’s own Charles Manson?
First, for younger readers, we offer a reminder that yes, Charles Manson did try to ignite a race war. That was the point of the Tate-LaBianca murders that he directed: to get the public to blame the mass murder of Hollywood celebrities on Blacks. He called this plan “Helter Skelter,” after the then-contemporary Beatles song, which he thought was acknowledging his long-standing plans, conveyed to the cult her called “The Family,” to start such a war. (The song actually uses a famous British amusement park ride “Helter Skelter,” a spiral slide track built around a tower containing stairs to the top, to create some sort of metaphor for confusing romantic relationship. The word “skelter” is related to “kilter,” which remains in our language in the phrase “off-kilter,” which Manson floridly was.) The song — to which Manson listened obsessively in the wake of devising his Book of Revelation-based theory of an apocalyptic race war, was on what was called “The White Album,” so I’m sure that we can all agree that this would be an easy mistake to make. The Wikipedia page on the Helter Skelter scenario describes Manson being obsessed with many songs from both the White Album (technically entitled “The Beatles” on a pure white cover) and its successor, Abbey Road. For me the most surprising revelation from that page was that the song “Sexy Sadie” coincidentally (or by cosmic irony) mentioned a nickname of Manson Family member Susan Atkins, which … is odd, but odd things do sometimes happen by chance.)
Manson’s theory that following lurid murders of wealthy people in an epic war would break out between racist whites and anti-racist whites, who would all but annihilate each other while the Manson Family would wait out the war safely in an underground city in Death Valley. Blacks would then rise up and finish off the victors. But this would be a temporary victory, because all of this his would trigger the events foretold in the Book of Revelation, from which Manson (and the Beatles) would emerge supreme.
Helter Skelter was designed to set this process in motion. A release of a record album by Manson was also a key part of the scheme; the first set of murders occurred at a home in Benedict Canyon, north of Beverly Hills, that had previously been leased by a Columbia Records executive; Sharon Tate was unfortunately the new lessee. The second set targeted Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, in Los Angeles’s Los Feliz district, just northwest of Silverlake. {Los Feliz means “The Family.”)
I’m not going to review Trump’s attempts to ignite a race war, including by deflecting the violent actions of whites onto Blacks. It’s gotten enough coverage.
So, back to the topic at hand, Who Wore It Better? (“It” in this case being a scowl on the face of a booking photo. (As I write that, I realize that I only have some website’s assurance that Manson’s image really comes from a booking photo, but just work with my premise here.)
Trump’s power pose comes off as cartoonish. I’ve already seen it in a meme where he’s telling some attendant that his diaper is full, but I find that unkind. Not unkind enough for me not to mention it here, obviously, but still … unkind.) It comes off as meticulously posed and staged. I’d be afraid of this person if it were my boss in a workplace situation, but as for physical menace — not really. At least not for me, as I am not am attractive woman under 50, as E. Jean Carroll was when Trump raped her.
Manson, one the other hand, comes off as imminently dangerous and batshit insane. I’m guessing that even attractive women under 50 would agree that their odds of remaining safe were better with the guy with the yellow pouf than the one with a swastika carved into his forehead. Trump can take some consolation that he was much better when it came to trying to overthrow the American system of government, of course, but Manson could take consolation in being more serious in his religious beliefs. (Such as they were.) Manson clearly wore the scowl better and more believably than Trump. Trump is both a poser and a poseur — but he is the only person
Not that many people are, of course, eligible in the category of “Mug Shot after trying to instigate a race war.” (If you’re wondering about Adolf Hitler, yes he was arrested after the Beer Hall Putsch in which he tried to take control over Bavaria, but I don’t find evidence of a mug shot. And before anyone mentions the Symbionese Liberation Army, they were trying to instigate a race war, and the closest anyone came to scowling in a mug shot was Patty Hearst, and she was clearly an amateur. We won’t review her story here, but happily she has been doing quite well now for decades, though we can’t speak to any recurrent nightmares of her abuse.)
This is another Open Thread?
There are those, on social media, who have identified “The Kubrick Stare.”
And this is why they call him the Rude Pundit:
“1. Honestly, the conservadouche Fox “news” moderators, Bret Baier and Martha MacCullum, could have phrased things differently at the first debate of the future losers of the Republican nomination for president on Wednesday night in Milwaukee. Baier asked for a show of hands in answer to the question, “If former President Trump is convicted in a court of law, would you still support him as your party’s choice?” He might as well have asked, “If President Trump wanted you to come to his prison cell and suck his dick, would you?” The response would have been the same, with fast-talking, bright-toothed, empty-headed rich fucknut Vivek Ramaswamy eagerly raising his hand to volunteer that he’d vigorously gobble some orange knob and others joining in to demonstrate how much they want Trump’s balls slapping their chins with pathetic, shouty worm Ron DeSantis and America’s mopiest stepdad Mike Pence grudgingly admitting that, yeah, they’d mouth the mushroom. Only sad, hairless scrotum Asa Hutchinson and beach ball with high blood pressure Chris Christie had the nerve to say, “No, get that thing out of my face.” ….”
Read more at “Two Extra Depressing Moments from the Republican Debate of the Damned” https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2023/08/two-extra-depressing-moments-from.html
Race war – really ..? It was Fulton County that commanded the presence of President Trump.
Ah yes – those “RIGGERS!”
I won’t be trying to make sense of your comment.
Yeah, Fulton County commanded him to appear. That’s what happens when you reach out into another jurisdiction to commit a crime.
And yes, calling for politics to be settled by use of force, in a nation where people of one race can freely procure and bear arms and those of another minority race cannot is trying to threaten a race war — exactly along the lines that Manson forecast.
Wow – look at Diamond – calling for “firearm equity.” Pretty sure that jurisdiction will be transferred to Federal court.
Is “firearms equity” what you goofs call it? I had in mind something along the lines of “Equal Treatment Under the Law.”
A “respectable-looking person” [i.e., white adult], like the one who just shot up Cook’s Corner, is not going to get harassed by police or suspected to searches or gunned down if they are find to have a firearm in a car — even if the bullets are in the trunk. Someone who is darker, younger, scruffier, obviously pooer, or obviously associated with even a reformist left-wing cause is more likely to get arrested or shot. The former person’s home stockpile of weaponry is generally not going to be found or lead to an arrest; those in the latter category don’t have that luxury.
I don’t recall whether I’ve written on this here, but at one point I was contemplating whether — in accord with the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms — whether it would be a good idea for groups to arm the homeless to protect them from threatening others. I decided against it specifically because, while homeless people legally have those rights (unless they’ve been taken away for some reason you may well oppose), if the police knew that homeless were likely to have guns they would start shooting at them preemptively if they got a cross-eyed look from one.
So which sort of conservative gun enthusiast are you, skally: one who things that the police don’t exhibit any of the prejudgments I suggest above, one who thinks that they do but it’s OK or even an actual positive, or one who actively thinks that we need to keep “these people” down because they, without respect to individual basis for suspicion, would post a threat to the real (white and conservative) citizens of this country in a time of social unrest?
Do you depend in some way on there NOT being a program to help Blacks, Browns, and Reds (commies by your standards) get guns?
I doubt if you are going to be able to arm many homeless. There would be the problem of them qualifying for CCW.
Why would it have to be concealed?
So are you glad that they wouldn’t in your opinion pass the requirements to CCW? Or are you upset at the clear infringement of what you’d term a constitutional right to armed self-defense?
Are you really going to support my “guns for me but not for thee” thesis this quickly? I thought that you’d wriggle more.
I’d rather discuss the idiotic and unconstitutional idea that a state can incorrectly enforce a Federal law in an attempt to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot.
Of course you want to drop this particular discussion. Ok, then:
Am I right that you are talking about 14th Amendment Section 3?
Do we agree that the state, rather than the federal government, in the first instance handles questions of ballot qualifications?
If so, then do we agree that for a federal office the initial determination would be made by the California Secretary of State, currently Shirley Weber?
If so, do you agree that if she were to disqualify a candidate based on this constitutional provision, the it would then be subject to litigation in court to stop its application to a candidate?
If so, do you agree that federal litigation on the question would then go (on an expedited basis) to the federal district court, then to the circuit court, and then to the US Supreme Court?
Go look up U.S. Const. Am. 14, Sec. 3 before you give your answers.
The idea is definitely not idiotic; with most of the Supreme Court lineups we’ve had over the past half-century it would probably be held constitution, but who knows with this crew. They’ve been known to write the text of disfavored provisions right out of the law when it suits them. So we’ll find out their view in plenty of time, surely before filing closes for the primary.
Oh dear me, Tardif. You mean like how can a state arbitrarily decide who the presidential electors are going to be despite the actual vote count?
Since this clause does not include “upon conviction by a Federal court of jurisdiction” – which I believe is a flaw – it will have to go to SCOTUS.
Skally, I really recommend that you read the Luttig-Tribe open letter on this subject. If you can’t find it easily, I’ll hunt down a link for you.
For the Supreme Court to get the case, there has to be an actual legal controversy. For that reason, the first step in adjudication has to be some state election official who believes that that XIV/3 (as I’ll call it) really does bar Trump from office. Then Trump can challenge it in federal district court, after which it will swiftly go up to the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court can then decide to take the case or to leave a Ninth Circuit law in place. (But it looks like the Secretary of State in New Hampshire is likelier to take the first swipe at this, which means that an initial decision would come from the First Circuit.)
Maybe it should say “after conviction” — although that leads to the “try me in 2026” kind of gamesmanship we’ve recently seen — but it doesn’t. The Supreme Court will — if it’s consistent — stick to the text, which while it was written to deal with insurrectionist Confederate officeholders, does not on its face only apply to them. Nor is it likely that it was intended to expire before some future insurrection.
So, yeah, the Supreme Court should and would have its say, even if it is just leaving a lower court opinion in place. If that’s good enough for you, then we agree on the result.
Pequeño problema señor – Trump has not been charged with insurrection or rebellion & it doesn’t look like he will be thus charged.
“Skally, I really recommend that you read the Luttig-Tribe open letter on this subject.“
Ha ha ha … Lawrence Tribe – dude is a f**king joke. 🙂
Ever heard of Luttig?
https://constitutioncenter.org/about/board-of-trustees/j-michael-luttig
Bingo! ITYS …
BREAKING: Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has confirmed he CANNOT remove Trump from the 2024 ballot.
“Now, the Arizona Supreme Court said that because there’s no statutory process in federal law to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment, you can’t enforce it.”
“That’s what the Arizona Supreme Court said, so that’s the state of the law in Arizona. Now, do I agree with that? No, that’s stupid.”
“What I’m saying is I’m going to follow the law, and the law in Arizona is what the law in Arizona is. Whether I like it or not, is irrelevant.”
What does Luttig and Tribes article say about this? Go ahead, look it up!
(Hint: just as with what your comments do to your reputation, it’s “self-executing.”)
“ What does Luttig and Tribes article say about this?” Paywall – not participating.
Tell me what it says in reference to the AZ AG determination.
It says that he can make that determination for his state! It could be challenged by an extraordinary writ, but basically it’s a state matter and the Secretary of State, as the election officer, makes the initial call, which would have substantial presumption behind it unless perhaps it was arbitrary and capricious!
Likewise, Shirley Weber makes the call in our fair state, and Jane Nelson gets to do so in what I presume must be your beloved Texas.
But look — whether it helps Trump is not my concern, although I feel sorry for his marks. My concern is whether this provision of the Constitution will have any deterrent effect on federal officeholders who are considering joining in or otherwise supporting a coup.
Are we, um, on the same page when it comes to wanting to deter people, so far is legally allowable, from trying to overthrow the government? Maybe I’m overestimating you.
GD: “ It says that he can make that determination for his state!” No shit … However, the logic of his argument is hard to refute. I noticed that you did not attempt to do so.
GD: “ Are we, um, on the same page when it comes to wanting to deter people, so far is legally allowable, from trying to overthrow the government?”
I am all in on the effort to overthrow the Biden regime & administrative/Deep State by every legal means possible.
At this point, I’m just going to presume that everyone except Tardif can understand that Luttig and Tribe say that election officials make the initial call, which can then be challenged in court, and that Tardif actually does understand this to but is just doing an intellection impression of OJ Simpson not being able to put on the bloody glove.
Let the record show that when asked “whether he agrees that we should wanting to deter people, so far is legally allowable, from trying to overthrow the government,” in the context of their having firearms, Tardif changed the subject, possibly thinking that no one would notice.
Tardif is ranting and raving behind the scenes that Greg has “LIBELLED” him here (by saying that Tardif “changed the subject” rather than come out against violent sedition) and his rants are getting tiresome, so here I come to investigate.
Greg asked: “Are we on the same page when it comes to wanting to deter people, so far is legally allowable, from trying to overthrow the government?”
Tardif answered: “I am all in on the effort to overthrow the Biden regime & administrative/Deep State by every legal means possible.”
So yeah he sorta-answered in a smartass way, and sorta changed the subject. In any case, for Greg to characterize this as changing the subject is far from “LIBEL.” In any case this “conversation” has gone on long enough. It’s been real, it’s been provocative, but it HASN’T been real provocative.
GD: “..in the context of their having firearms,” Diamond is implying that I would approve of overthrowing the government by use of firearms. That is a completely false and libelous statement.
These were separate conversations, the one involving DIAMOND’S suggestion that the HOMELESS be supplied firearms – for their self protection I imagine – and the other completely separate conversation concerning the legal (by voting is implied) overthrow of the Biden regime.
See you in court then, skallywag. Bring your wallet.
I did not suggest that the homeless be provided firearms. I said EXPLICITLY that I had toyed with the idea — because their right to keep and bear arms is just as real as yours or anyone else’s — but then rejected it, because they, unlike people like you, would be highly likely to get killed. Learn to comprehend what you read. It’s the same reason that the Black Panthers got slaughtered for doing the same thing (in terms of stockpiling arms) that white Southerners (within and outside of the KKK) were doing — and with a hell of a lot better justification, even if (largely due to agents provocateurs planted within their numbers) it didn’t work out well.
Trump flirts with saying the quiet part — that if white nationalists do not get their way through the ballot, that they have every right to take power by armed force — out loud. If you want to offer your more stirring criticism of that proposition, the floor is yours. (It’s hard for me to predict what you’ll do with that challenge, though.) Any part of “armed force makes right” that you want to loudly denounce?
Born Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017)
November 12, 1934
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.
That’s not a fair comparison.
Trump killed a lot more people.
Ah, they were mostly American spies and foreign sources helping us resist Russian expansion; who cares about what they were doing?
I was referring to COVID deaths in 2020. Lots of them.
That’s not entirely fair. Because Trump so badly bungled the response to the problem early on, he’s also responsible for a great share of the Covid deaths in 2021, 2022, and even here in 2023.
Doesn’t a lot of Trump’s guilt, though, accrue to all the morons who voted for him? Only a few dozen cultists, so to speak, voted for Charlie.
Please review Trump’s attempt to ignite a race war; fantasy is my favorite reading genre. While the Democrats are stomping on Trump’s reputation (as he laughs all the way to the bank with 7.1 million) a certain clientele is declaring “Ni**as for Trump” and “the ‘hood has your back”! Trump has street cred. Long live the King of the ‘Hood!
Sure, Wykoff, sure.
And all black people think more highly of someone with a mugshot.
Stay in Irvine.
DJT has raked in $9 million now.
The traitor still conning his brain-dead followers.