Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties

I’ve been wanting to update this review for a while. I bought the book upon release in 2019, and read bits and pieces. Then I got busy with other things, and forgot about it. In 2022, in the throes of the ‘pandemic”, I had a … kind of a rising of awareness (I’m trying not to sound to wildly esoteric) and I resumed reading the book from scratch … and devoured it quickly.In a nutshell, this book is highly recommended for anyone who’s curious about what was really going on behind the scenes about many odd events throughout the tumultuous 1960’s. It’s a well-written page-turner that reads like a good thriller.The crux of the story involves the intrepid reporter, Tom O’Neill, spending 20+ years researching the Manson murders. As the info piles up, he starts to see that the standard line of the ‘Helter Skelter’ race-war story may have been fabricated. Why? He also notices no one in the celebrity world close to the events wants to talk about it, even after all these years.This, and in fact, any position on a motive, is where you can descend into the never-ending Manson rabbit hole. O’Neill sees a nefarious link between Manson and the CIA’s various mind-control projects that where conducted in the 1950’s-60’s-70’s. There were many of them, notably, MK ULTRA, MK OFTEN, and MK NAOMI (which is curious, because that was the middle name of one the celebrities mentioned in the book). All of this ties into Operation Chaos, a government program specially designed to target anti-war activists and radicals (read hippies and counter-cultural celebrities).The mind-control projects were ran by important researchers all over the US, and probably the world. Notably, they used members of the military, prisoners, and college students as subjects (often unwittingly). For example, Unabomber Ted Kaczynski is said to have participated in these experiments while a student at Harvard. There’s significant research on many soldiers who were a part of these experiments, witting and unwitting. In fact, this reviewer was acquainted with a former soldier who had, as I was told by his guardian, had been dosed with psychedelics in voluntary experiments and suffered profound brain damage that made him a six foot 200 lb.child. Manson, who had spent most of his life in several Federal prisons (or so, that’s what we are told), would seem to have been a likely candidate, considering his relative intelligence, conman smarts, and strange charisma. Many have noted the remarkable psychological hold Manson had over his mostly female followers, and have wondered where this scrawny, uneducated redneck developed these powers. But what came first, the chicken or the egg … did Manson acquire these skills on his own in prison to survive perhaps, or was he taught these skills by CIA-affiliated researchers?I will not spoil the ending for those new to the tale, but it’s just as confusing as everything else in the Manson saga. And this confusion is in no part O’Neill’s fault, in fact he opens many new lanes in the underground Manson rabbit hole complex, but, alas, the confusion is deliberately baked into the whole strange story.There are as many Manson researchers as grains of sand at your local beach it seems. Many completely discount O’Neill’s theories and research, despite the fact that MK ULTRA and Operation Chaos are verified, and admitted, programs of wide depth and reach. They just refuse to accept the idea that intelligence agency shenanigans were apart of this story and insist the sordid motive for the murders was mundane, nothing more than drug deals gone south, or idiotic attempts to free peripheral Family member, and erstwhile criminal mastermind, Bobby Beausoleil, from charges that he had murdered friend-to-the-Family, Gary Hinman. One motive postulates Manson as mafia contract killer, though Manson seems to have no pedigree as a wanton killer. But why would the mafia want Sharon Tate et al killed, and by a bunch of drug-addled young hippy girls and one wig-selling hick from Texas? There are many other theories, including that Manson was seeking revenge for being screwed over with his music career, but none of the victims worked in the music industry.The motive theory used by LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the most famous, states that Manson sent the crew to kill Tate and friends in order to ignite a race war … and so on … all of this divined by Manson from repeated listenings to The Beatles White Album from 1968, and it’s famous proto-metal song, “Helter Skelter”.This is where O’Neill comes in, as he carefully dissects Bugliosi’s reasoning via trial transcripts, police reports, interviews, and miscellaneous ephemera. We discover the vaunted crime-fighting DA has his own very shady past, and that the “Helter Skelter” motive was largely made-up to get convictions … and some would say to avoid embarrassing all the celebrities entwined in Manson’s weird world of drug-drenched occultism and violence.We also meet famed 1960’s record producer Terry Melcher and Beach Boys drummer, Dennis Wilson. How they became friendly with Manson, Tex Watson, and the gals is murky indeed (what isn’t in this tale?). I’ve noted that, aside from the stories Wilson and Melcher themselves told, and lots of hearsay, there’s no solid proof any of these people knew each other. Supposedly, Manson recorded several songs at numerous locations from 1967-69, even recording in Wilson’s home studio. There’s rumored to be many hours of Manson’s music locked away … somewhere. Is this true? These tapes could give credence that Manson actually ran in these circles. Perhaps.Yet, how did this itinerant, 30-something, ex-con with no pedigree accomplish this with music heavyweights like Melcher and Wilson? Manson had no formal music training, no family pedigree, and no extraordinary talent. Supposedly, he learned guitar from former Ma Barker gangster Alvin Karpis. I didn’t know Federal prisoners sit around strumming guitars all day.I know of no prominent musician from that era who came from such a background. They all came from either prominent families with some pedigree (most of them), or were luckily well-connected to those families, or had risen up from several years of hard work busking and gigging in the folk scene (Cass Elliot et al. In fact Cass had already been on Johnny Carson with the folk trio The Big 3 before hitting the big time with the Mamas and the Papas). So, no itinerant, cult-leader, ex-con, former pimp (or folks with similarly criminal background) became pop starts then, or now, aside from rappers whose back stories seem questionable to me …It seems Manson must have had some powerful person speaking on his behalf in order to access this rarified world of Hollywood and music. Amazingly, it’s said Manson was even hired as a consultant on a Hollywood film, but quit over some issues regarding race about the story and cast. Who knows? Manson, in subsequent “locked up” years, did a lot of name-dropping of famous celebrities he claims he knew, some intimately, as he partied and hobnobbed with the Hollywood Hills In-Crowd. As you do after spending most of your life in prison for various idiotic crimes.O’Neill doesn’t dwell on these stories, many salacious, and aside from Melcher and Wilson, he mentions the late singer Cass Elliot as having some type of connection to Manson via her mysterious boy friends, Billy Doyle, and Harris Pickens “Pic” Dawson. This story about Doyle, is one of the most fascinating parts of the book. The story about Pic, which reaches back to Cass’s days at Spook U, American University, in 1962, when she first met Pic (son of a prominent State Department official), deserves it’s own book.O’Neill introduces us to the very mysterious “secret-agent” (?) Reeve Whitson, who seems to have been deeply intrenched in the whole scene at Cielo Drive. Whitson is largely ignored by other researchers, who have no idea what to make of him. And, most importantly, we meet the ominous psychiatrist, Dr Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West. The good Dr seems to pop up in many strange events of the era from JFK/RFK assassinations to Patty Hearst. I will attempt no summary, you’ll have to read it for yourself. The other big question: Did West interact with, or treat Manson, or his followers, at any time? Read and see.A survey of Manson writings will net a slew of high weirdness. Many of the key Manson researchers from mainstream journalists or historians, to Manson acolytes and apologists, all repeat variations of stories told in the first news articles and books from just after the murders from 1969-71. There’s everything you’d get in a Russ Meyer flick (imagine Herschell Gordon Lewis with a big budget): psycho hippy killers, a beautiful pregnant actress brutally murdered, a rich young heiress brutally murdered, several unsolved murders and weird suicides, drug dealing rumors, biker gangs, satanism/occult, cults galore, debauched celebrities, wild sex parties, celebrity porn videos, revenge, race war, mind control, filthy freak communes, the mafia, car theft rings, honey pot schemes, on and on … everything but UFO’s and aliens landing in Beverly Hills. I’ve even seen articles from British news in Dec 1969, just after the charges, that tie the The Process Church of the Final Judgement to Manson … that was fast and eyebrow raising.Objectively speaking, it sounds overwrought, as if created to titillate and obsess over at every level from pop culture shenanigans to primal instincts of dread and fear.More open-minded researchers note the numerous links to the military, and intelligence agencies, among the many players in the Manson story. Of note, the very curious fact that the infamous Spahn Ranch where Mansons’s crew often lived in near squalor, yet rode around the desert terrain in souped up dune buggies made from stolen cars, protected by a veritable armory of high-powered weapons, was very close to the top secret Santa Susana Field Laboratory. You would assume in those paranoid hot and “Cold War” days, tight Lab security would know a lot about the intrepid hippy army next door.O’Neill breaks down the weird raid on Spahn ranch that netted many of the Family, including Manson himself, that happened a few days after the murders, but was totally unrelated. This gigantic raid involving many men and man-hours, was over the aforementioned stolen cars, which leads us to assume that Manson and Family were under extensive surveillance for several weeks leading up to this raid … which leads to many unanswered questions about what authorities knew about their comings-and-goings in the nights of the murders. The raid story will leave you dumbfounded …There is one fact related to military intelligence and the Tate murders that is widely known, yet largely ignored, or mentioned only in passing … and O’Neill never broaches the topic, but it sits there … the biggest elephant in the room.Overall: highly recommended. If you are not the conspiracy theory type, prepare to be unmoored and very … puzzled and shocked - considering how hard it is to shock us anymore.

Going into this book you need to understand there is not going to be a smoking gun that proves all of the authors assertions. He started writing this and researching back in 1999 which was 30 years after the murders and didn't publish until 2019. Unfortunately that means that a lot of documents and key players were lost to time, but that doesn't negate the authors claims of what possibly happened all of those years ago.Having read Helter Skelter and Manson in his own Words, I found this to be a fascinating journey which picks up where the mainstream narrative left off regarding the case of Charles Manson and his followers.I appreciated the fact the author also presents their findings and never attempts to strongarm the reader into believing their claims, but rather just gives you their evidence and allows you to make your own conclusions.Honestly I don't know where I stand with all of this new information. I seems too fantastic of a tale to be real, but on the other hand I do have confidence in the author and the validity of their claims. Some things which bothered me since Helter Skelter and seemed to bother the author as well is, if Charles Manson was such a threat and habitually breaking their parole, why was he constantly being let go? Why did Charles Manson's Parole Officer know all of this and yet constantly go to bat for him, even going to the extent of taking Manson's kid when he went to jail for a bit? Why did Helter Skelter deliberately leave out the fact that Terry Melcher met with the family AFTER the murders?So many unanswered questions here and I don't know what to make of it.Anyways, enough of my rambling. It was an excellent read and I absolutely recommend.

So...I approached this book with trepidation. I am not easily swayed by conspiracy theorists and their (more often than not) crackpot theories. I always read such books without suspending my disbelief and usually for my own enjoyment and entertainment rather than to take up the cause. I further questioned Tom O'Neill's bona fides as he is not an investigative reporter a la Woodward or even Capote for that matter. However, once I read the book, and having been familiar with the case since reading the original Helter Skelter, Ed Sanders' The Family, Jeff Guinn's The Life and Times of Charles Manson, and numerous other books either re-hashing the case or sociological analysis of the lasting impact from other nonfiction writers and memoirs from former Family members, I have to admit O'Neil may be on to something here and there. Other reviewers have pointed out some grandiose verbiage in his prose; others point out what they see as an annoying habit of repeating himself to make his points clear; and others attack him ad hominem for daring to question the "official" explanation and history of the case and its participants.Like many other authors and readers before him, O'Neill points out that the Helter Skelter motive is flimsy and Vince Bugliosi steamrolled the witnesses and the jury to prove it was the only motive. This is nothing new. I vaguely remember reading an interview with Bugliosi about 20-25 years after the trial and he hinted that he took a "crapshoot" with that angle, and, let's face it folks - it worked. He got his convictions. In one sense, that's all a DA is ultimately looking for. Now in this book, some interesting things come to light that maybe he tampered with witnesses, perhaps even going so far as to suborn perjury, but since he has passed away, no legal ethics committee or other form of judicial oversight is going to overturn the verdicts. Manson and Susan (Sadie) Atkins are also dead, and it's highly unlikely that Tex Watson, Patty Krenwinkel or Leslie Van Houten are ever going to be paroled (though Van Houten has been recommended twice, but denied by the governor of California both times). Even Stephen Kay, who was an assistant DA during the original trial and has campaigned against the parole of the convicted Family members ever since then, admits that a line of inquiry could be convened, but what would that accomplish in the long run.O'Neill, for his part, never bucks the fact that Manson and his followers were guilty of their crimes, heinous as they were. He doesn't absolve anyone from blame. What he does do, is present an argument that there were cover-ups about the case both during the original investigation, the trial, and the aftermath of the murders. He proposes that the Hollywood elite have taken some sort of vow/code of silence and no one speaks of the case or of even having ever met, let alone hung out with, Charlie in those final years of what is probably the most tumultuous decade in American history. He has uncovered questions about why a federal parolee could wander up and down the California between the Bay Area and Los Angeles without raising red flags. He has found links between the seamier side of the Southern California lifestyle and FBI/CIA operations to infiltrate and disrupt the "counterculture" of the anti-war movement specifically, and the general unrest related to civil rights and student demonstrations.Where O'Neill falls a bit flat in his argument is that he is so easy to dismiss Manson as an "career criminal with a lack of formal education who couldn't possibly persuade others to do his bidding." This is the mistake everyone makes with Charles Manson: they UNDERESTIMATE him. You see a short man with long, unkempt hair and beard, denim shirts and jeans, and mocassins and you immediately think "hippie." When he opens his mouth to speak, you hear an Appalachian drawl (Manson was raised in West Virginia near the Ohio border) and one immediately stereotypes as an uneducated hillbilly -- Manson was by his own admission barely literate, but some of his surviving handwriting exemplars on letters and notes show a man capable of putting down thoughts to paper, albeit in a deliberate scrawl. And then there's the explosive temper and the "crazy Charlie" act. I've heard a lot of people refer to Manson as "insane." Charles Manson was many things, but "insane" was not one of them. His "crazy Charlie" act was exactly that: an act, a show to unsettle others into thinking he was nuts. Charlie learned from many other career criminals how to run a con. He even took a Dale Carnegie course offered by one of the federal prisons he was incarcerated in. He learned to read (very slowly) but was well versed in the Bible and (as it's well know), read Hubbard's Dianetics and Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, or had parts read to him, both of which helped to formulate his philosophies. Combine that with a natural, charismatic personality and you have someone who could easily lead others and eventually use programming techniques/informal brainwashing to have them carry out your orders. It's not that far-fetched and yet O'Neill keeps running into people who can't understand how a "nobody" like Manson could do what the CIA and other government agencies could not when it came to controlling his disciples.In the end, O'Neil chalks it up to the zeitgeist of the 60's, the general isolation of the rich and famous not wanting to elicit more scandal than necessary, and the general refusal of law enforcement agencies to admit they were a bit remiss in initial investigations and for obvious reasons, no one from a district attorney's office is going to admit to any wrongdoing for fear of a mass upheaval in overturned convictions.So...what's the takeaway?To paraphrase, or rather upend, Neil Young (one of the few surviving celebrities from the ear willing to discuss the case), perhaps it's better to "fade away instead of burning out."