August, 1999 is upon us. It is supposed to be the month that we find out whether or not our military GPS system is going to crash under the y2k bug. It is one month after the world is supposed to end if you believe Nostradomus. It is about thirty years since Woodstock I. And it is, on August 9-10, 1999, the thirtieth anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca Murders by Charles Manson and his followers.

As such, it has been time for me to dust off my copy of Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter, published in 1974 by W.W. Norton in agreement with Bantam Books. Bugliosi, you may remember, is the man who successfully prosecuted the Tate-LaBianca Case in 1970-71 which brought to justice Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, Tex Watson, and Kate Krenwinckle. Their crime? The brutal murders of actress Sharon Tate, hairstylist Jay Sebring, playboy Voytek Frykowski, heiress Abigail Folger, 18-year-old average kid Steven Parent, and Leno and Rosemary La Bianca, your average well-off entrepenueral couple, on August 9 - 10, 1969. The crime and the trial is still considered the most extraordinary mass murder case in US history, is still talked about today, and is, in my opinion, one of the first--and one of the finest--examples of how popular culture has influenced the commission of evildoing on this planet. In re-reading Helter Skelter for the upteenth time, the sections dealing with Manson's use of cult religion, the Bible, and rock music to bring about these murders remains the most interesting parts of the book and the motive. And, to refresh memory, what was the motive according to Manson and Bugliosi? The murders of mostly affluent and/or notable whites in LA's ritzier sections occurred to "show" blacks how to start "Armegeddon" or a "black/white race war" after which, when the two sides wiped each other out with blacks victorious, the blacks would not know how to run things, so Manson and his followers would come out of their "bottomless pit" and take over again. All hundred-and-forty-four thousand of them.

It is not my intention here to dispute Bugliosi's conclusions. The evidence and Manson's own words suggests that the murders were committed, at least in part, to bring about a race war. But Bugliosi couldn't tell the whole story, seeing as how busy he was prosecuting the case, nor could he see the possible present and future connections which, I believe, bare on the case. For instance, Manson's influence, long after the case has been over--and from prison--on popular culture today: Manson, a wanna-be rock star, has had in the meantime rock stars emulating his hate (Marilyn Manson), or using his hateful lyrics (Axl Rose of Gun's & Roses), or even the overall shock-rock/satanic rock movement so widespread today. However, it is my intention to show that Manson's connection to the Beatles, by his own admission the main influence of their music on his motive to kill, might not have just been as a fan or even as an obsession. There are small, strange, but still pieces of evidence nevertheless, that Manson's connections to the Beatles might have been serious, that is, first-person connections.

Bugliosi insists that Manson's philosphy was borrowed from various cults like Scientology and The Process (which believes in worshipping Christ and Satan); his acts of killing are (according to Manson) "prophesied" in the Bible (particularly Revelations, Chapter 9); and messages in Beatles songs have "instructed" him on who, why, when, and how to murder. Manson has never disputed these, other than to disregard Scientology as much of an influence (though it was, particularly their methods of mind-control, without which Manson never could have brainwashed his followers). Thus, just what were Manson's possible connections to the Beatles, or, rather, how could the Beatles have influenced Manson's actions other than in Manson twisting their lyrics as a "message" to commit murder (much like David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", "used" a Jimi Hendrix song, "Purple Haze", as a "message" to commit murder.)

Among other interesting facts cited in Don Phau's article The Satanic Roots of Rockis the fact that:

• Though the Beatles were never known to be connected to any satanic or other cults promoting violence, the Rolling Stones were, and there are strong connections between the two bands, having worked together on several projects noted in the article. However, everybody knows about John Lennon's famous comment that the Beatles were more popular than Christ and that Christianity was dying out (also mentioned at the bottom of the article). The Beatles basically helped get the Stones going and played Dr. Jekell to the Stones Mr. Hyde--that is, they were two sides to the same power elitist plot to brainwash the world's youth.
  

• One of Manson's followers, Bobby Beausoleil, was slated to play Satan in the Kenneth Anger film, Lucifer Rising, but instead he went out and committed another Manson-ordered murder of Gary Hinman, and was sent to prison. Mick Jagger was supposedly asked to replace Beausoleil, but instead Church of Satan leader anton La Vey did. The Stones wrote the music for this movie--or maybe, the Beatles did. The Beatles were known to have written many of the Stones songs for them.
  

• Both Manson and the Beatles have as a hero one Aleister Crowley, the founding father of Satanism in the West. Crowley inspired the Church of Satan and The Process, the latter of which Manson and some of the Stones belonged to. What is the Beatles connection? The fact is, Crowley appears on the cover (as well as many others) of Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and it is possible that the LP was dedicated to Crowley as well, as the Album was released exactly twenty years after the death of Crowley in 1947. Remember the opening lines to the first song, the same as the album's name? Since the lines are copyrighted and I don't have permission to print them, I will paraphrase: Twenty years ago today (the day the LP was released), Sargeant Pepper taught his band to play. Which could mean that Crowley is a mentor for the Beatles.
  

And, furthermore--

• It would be hard in the extreme to try to even suppose that the Beatles, as an icon of the philosophy of "peace and love" (as well as sex, drugs and rock 'n roll), could ever promote violence in their music. But what about George (Concert for Bangladesh promoter/performer and Indian CIA member) Harrison's song "Piggies"? You know, the one that says "piggies" or the Establishment (which wouldn't give Charlie a recording contract) should get a damned good whacking? By forks in their stomachs, no less (which is what they did to Leno LaBianca)? Then their are the Lennon-McCartney songs like "Blackbird" (which, according to Manson, tells blacks to rise up; "Sexy Sadie" (a message for Susan Atkins?); "Helter Skelter" (a phrase that has, for years, meant confusion and chaos? Does anyone really think the Beatles really wrote that song about an amusement park slide, or was it a cover up for something else?); "Revolution No. 1" (where, according to Charlie, the Beatles vascillate between joining and staying out of Manson's "Revolution"); and, last and foremost, "Revolution No. 9". The cacophony of sounds, effects and BBC quotes (one of which refers to stab wounds), according to Manson, proved (to him at least) the Beatles, if not actually the inspiration for murder, were at least tuned into it and knew somehow what the "revolution" would sound like. There is no evidence--at least known to me--that the Beatles meant to inspire Manson to murder, or even that they knew Manson wanted to murder. But I still believe Manson and the Beatles had mutual connections. Further, many of the Beatles songs have dual meanings: "Happiness is a Warm Gun," for instance, means (to most) the notion of sex, but to Manson means get guns to start the black/white war.
  

  
  

• The most important "message" Manson got out of the Beatles songs was the title, "Revolution No. 9"--Manson believed that the Beatles made a direct reference to the Bible's Book of Revelation (Revolution = Revelation?), Chapter Nine. This is the chapter about "the angel of the bottomless pit" who was leader of the "four angles" that were unleashed to start Armeggedon. (Beatles = four angles: "they had breastplates of fire" that is, electric guitars; and they had "hair of women", that is, the Beatles long hair; and in addition to having "faces of men" they had "tails like unto scorpions"-- Beatles = scorpions??? And, of course, Manson--according to Manson-- was the "angel of the bottomless pit). So, did Manson just twist lyrics around to suit him, which, despite his mutual connection with the Beatles, I still believe he did? Or, did the Beatles, because of mutual connections, want to send Charlie a message? Was Manson merely (like so many others at the time) obsessed with the Beatles? Or, did he know the Beatles secretly and did they know him?
  

  
  

• Or--and this really sounds absurd, but, given the connections of quite a few in the rock and country music business to the CIAs MK-Ultra program--was Manson cued to murder by hearing Beatles songs? Were his followers also in MK-Ultra?
  

  
  

• Or--equally absurd--was Manson a pawn of the Satanists, doing their "snuff" projects for them? Check it out--Roman Polanski, husband of Sharon Tate, was a supposedly a satanist who also did cult and occult films. He worked with Anger on "Lucifer Rising", among other films he was involved with. Also, Manson, as a wanna-be rock star, was supposed to have been "given" a recording contract by Terry Melcher, son of Doris Day and previous owner of the Tate murder house. Melcher never gave Charlie the recording contract. Was the murder of Tate a mistake--it was supposed to be Melcher? Or did Polanski "order" the murder of his wife?

Just some thoughts to remember history's most facsinating mass murder by--and its popular culture connections.