Kelly’s review of Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties > Likes and Comments
298 likes · Like
Kudos for the review, especially catching that misattribution to page 626 of Helter Skelter. I just double-checked my copy, and I don't see the phrase "something that he learned from others" anywhere either. The fact that what O'Neill considers "the most pivotal words in the book" don't seem to exist doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I was considering purchasing a copy but knowing that there are no footnotes and the credibility of the author is dubious means I'll borrow it from the library.
thank you for bringing up these points; I totally agree that trying to bring together the reporting and the personal narrative scrambled the potential for either one to be really effective
The combining of the "two parts" I think is important for a book like this, where the truth is never really settles. That's how things are sometimes: the world is unfair and people lie and we will never really know the extent to which this occurs. This is part of why people who are "conspiracy theorists" are seen as so crazy, is because the fact that this stuff is all uncertain by design can get very frustrating. O'Neill is attempting, in my reading, to come to grips with this: "I know there are no definite answers, but this is what we DO know, and we have to be okay with just this"
Mike wrote: "Kudos for the review, especially catching that misattribution to page 626 of Helter Skelter. I just double-checked my copy, and I don't see the phrase "something that he learned from others" anywhe..."
Thanks! Yes, I think it's definitely questionable.
SpookyBoogie wrote: "I was considering purchasing a copy but knowing that there are no footnotes and the credibility of the author is dubious means I'll borrow it from the library."
Good call. I was so glad I borrowed it from the library instead of purchasing it!
Jack wrote: "The combining of the "two parts" I think is important for a book like this, where the truth is never really settles. That's how things are sometimes: the world is unfair and people lie and we will ..."
Agreed. I think the combining of the two parts could have been done better, though. I probably would've liked the book more if it had been.
Lou wrote: "thank you for bringing up these points; I totally agree that trying to bring together the reporting and the personal narrative scrambled the potential for either one to be really effective"
It felt like he wasn't quite sure how to seamlessly combine the reporting with the personal narrative and if he had some guidance with it, it could have been so much better.
Hi, I have found the full quote for the “learned from others” section you had trouble finding.
>”All of these factors contributed to Manson’s control over others. But when you add them all up, do they equal murder without remorse? Maybe, but I tend to think that there is something more, some missing link that enabled him to so rape and bastardize the minds of his followers that they would go against the most ingrained of all commandments, Thou shalt not kill, and willingly, even eagerly, murder at his command. It may be something in his charismatic, enigmatic personality, some intangible quality or power that no one has yet been able to isolate and identify. It may be something he learned from others.”
I have Helter Skelter on mobile and not in physical form so my page numbers may not be accurate but for me this was on page 629. Three pages after the “How Manson gained control remains the most puzzling question of all”. To give O’Neill the benefit of doubt the whole sub chapter was based on that question.
And in your review you say “He left out key information about Dean Moorehouse being Ruth Moorehouses father, which is important later on” when in fact O’Neill goes on the very next page to talk about Dean and especially his daughter Ruth.
Great review. I am still reading Chaos and some of this stuff is driving me crazy.
I was in a bookstore with my mother only yesterday when she spied this book. She read the book jacket out loud and in it, Manson was described as illiterate. This kind of sloppiness, before the book even started, was enough to put me completely off the book. First impressions really do count. My mom bought it for herself anyhow.
My recollection, from Helter Skelter and other work I've read about Manson and his gang, and correct me if I'm wrong: Manson didn't really learn to read well till his first stints in prison, and then became an avid reader. "Stranger In a Strange Land" was supposedly one of his favorites, and he also read about Scientology. Also, he's known to have fancied himself a songwriter. That's not really what I'd call literate; not really even what I'd call uneducated. I'd more call him self-educated, somewhat selectively self-educated, no doubt.
No offense, but you should find a new favorite true crime book. O'Neill contributed a huge amount of original interviews and research to this topic, and it's nitpicky of you to complain about a slight inaccuracy in his analysis of Bugliosi's book. Furthermore, said analysis isn't what shatters Bugliosi's credibility. It's Bugliosi's own criminality (covering up evidence, wife-beating, etc), along with O'Neill's disturbing personal experience's with the man.
What would you suggest reading instead?
Have you read 'Now Is The Only Thing That's Real' by Neil Sanders? If so what are your thoughts?
I just started this book, and I don't know if I'm going to continue... if his primary thesis is that 'someone' must have taught Charles Manson to control people with drugs, abuse, sleep deprivation etc. then he clearly knows nothing about cults and cult leaders. And if he's aiming at what I think he might be aiming at, which is collusion with the CIA, I really doubt that's the case. At least, directly. The CIA did introduce LSD to America, and they did shady experiments. Their links to the Unibomber and so many covert operations have been made public, I highly doubt this slid under the radar. Parole officers are notoriously lax. They don't really have the resources to monitor every perpetrator all the time. And I'm sure every prosecuting attorney has been less than ethical on occasion to ensure conviction. Basically, Thanks for the review! If you already know about the CIA and MKUltra, it doesn't sound like it's a 'secret history' of the 60s.
Hey Kelly, just to let you know that the frase quoted in the book “It may have been something he learned from others” actually appears in shelter Skelter as “It may be something he learned from others” in the epilogue, below the isbn of the edition I checked. I’m not sure why he added the word that in the book.
ISBN: 978-0-393-07236-5
this review stinks. just say you believe cops 100% of the time and move on, it would make everything a helluva lot easier for the rest of us (meaning we wouldn't have to read through your garbage review to understand you're just another run-of-the-mill bootlicker)
why do you so blindly trust the notoriously corrupt LAPD and LASO? just curious lol
This review needs to be removed. She is lying.
I think is well presented, Imagine study the subject for 20 years and to be totally honest that he stills doesn’t know what happened. The author gives you the new evidence and you have to theorize about what really happened. Is not the happy ending you always crave. But it opens a very weird door of conspiracy between de US government and their citizens. During the reading of the book, I kept thinking about the meth crisis in black American neighborhoods, and how the CIA was involved.
Is this woman related to Bugliosi or something?
Part of your review is incorrect, likely because you looked at a different edition of Helter Skelter. Look up the phrase in Google Books and you can see a photo of the book where the author of Chaos quoted it exactly.
I'd share a direct link to the quote in Google Books but Goodreads doesn't allow it.
This is a garbage review. Nitpicking about the way he quoted Helter Skelter being off by a word is such a dumb thing to be upset about. Especially when the quotes provided in Chaos literally say the same thing. And Chaos mentions that Dean Moorehouse is Ruth Anne’s father numerous times throughout the book, which makes sense that he omitted that part of the quote, ya dingus.
Had the same thought/feeling as above, is she related to Bugliosi? I thought the book exceptionally well written, admired O'Neill's passion, commitment and couldn't let it go dedication to follow all leads and report what he found. Fascinating and worth the read.
Just wanted to say thank you for the review - although some of the nastier commentators don't understand about sources and adding or subtracting words (there is an established format you use () for a word added and ... to show where you have left something out) and how inappropriate it is to add or move words from one part of a book to another. They also don't understand that it isn't nit-picking it is a question of accuracy and thus reliability or trustworthiness and why all quotations should be traceable - authors who play fast and loose (David Irving did the same and got away with it until he was found out at his libel trial) sacrifice our trust.
I am sure it can't be nice but on some level attracting denunciations as a CIA plant or being a relative of Bugliosi should be treated as a compliment to your skills. I also congratulate you for leaving those insane, and unpleasant comments posted.
Thank you again for a great review which saved me from wasting time on this book.
Liam wrote: "Just wanted to say thank you for the review - although some of the nastier commentators don't understand about sources and adding or subtracting words (there is an established format you use () for..."
Just because people are rude, doesn't mean they're wrong. Lol!
I was on the fence about reading this book, and this review has swayed me to leave it alone. Not a CIA plant or a Bugliosi fanboy - but I strongly value accuracy in reporting on topics such as these. Misquoting and leaving words out is a subtle way of changing the narrative without overtly lying and it definitely erodes trust.
Mason wrote: "In fact, you could very well be a CIA plant to discredit the book."
Ah-ha, but you might be a CIA plant to discredit a person who is a danger to a CIA conspiracy to make the CIA look bad which is necessary to ensure that the Kree plot is successful against the Krulls. So you get out of here Mr. Secret Krull False Flag Operator.
Quite an unfair review that massively discredits the author. You couldn’t find the direct quote and called the entire book’s accuracy into question. Oh right, you were looking at the wrong page of Helter Skelter….. sheesh. Funny how you use false information to spin a narrative…. I can see why Helter Skelter is your favourite true crime book.
All the people who have decided against reading this book because they “value accuracy” should also “value accuracy” of the reviews that they read online…..
I liked both Helter Skelter and Chaos (and I don’t have enough knowledge to choose between them) but your review made me curious, and I went to check O’Neill’s quotes against a hard copy I borrowed from the library. I used the 25th anniversary hardcover edition from 1994 (W.W. Norton), and I found:
•on p. 377 it does indeed say “a Dean Moorehouse” (no mention of Ruth Anne)
•on p. 485 there is the whole quote, including the part “something he learned from others”
I took photos of the relevant pages if you want to see them.
I’m wondering if O’Neill consulted multiple editions, and then cited them incorrectly (attributing quotes to the wrong one)?
along with Hal Johnson above I can also confirm that the quotes appear as O'Neill cites them in the copy of Helter Skelter I checked.
I also didn't care for this book. No, I'm not a CIA plant or related to Bugliosi. Reading it was confusing, and it was so disjointed. It read like someone high was breathlessly telling you a conspiracy theory and you should believe them because trust me, bro.
Wow I was told by Candace Owens to read this book which I did and I am mind blown and I would give it a five star!!!
I was skeptical of this book and he may try to put too many things together. But he got Bugliosi's manufacture of motive and evidence right. This is backed up by respected journalist, Ivor Davis's
"Manson Exposed" book. Davis was one first journalists to visit Tate house and Manson's ranch. Murders motive may have been Manson wanted throw police off the previous Gary Hinman killing. Recommend Davis book. Chaos film is scheduled for Netflix Mar.7, 2025
Idk what version you have, but end notes in my book literally start with the phrase they are attached to.
This is obviously a person the believes everything the government says😂
I don’t know if you’ve read the book considering there’s a lot of end notes which literally do the opposite of what you’ve said…
Except he didn’t present alternatives to the story. He laid out the FACTS! You obviously didn’t read the book
Yes I agree totally with you on this .
Not sure how you can finish this book and still praise bugliosi. Shut the fuck up 😂
I have disagree with this review. This book is by far the best book I have read in a long time about the corruption in our government!
back to top
message 1:
by
Mike
(new)
May 03, 2020 07:30AM
Kudos for the review, especially catching that misattribution to page 626 of Helter Skelter. I just double-checked my copy, and I don't see the phrase "something that he learned from others" anywhere either. The fact that what O'Neill considers "the most pivotal words in the book" don't seem to exist doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
reply
|
flag
I was considering purchasing a copy but knowing that there are no footnotes and the credibility of the author is dubious means I'll borrow it from the library.
thank you for bringing up these points; I totally agree that trying to bring together the reporting and the personal narrative scrambled the potential for either one to be really effective
The combining of the "two parts" I think is important for a book like this, where the truth is never really settles. That's how things are sometimes: the world is unfair and people lie and we will never really know the extent to which this occurs. This is part of why people who are "conspiracy theorists" are seen as so crazy, is because the fact that this stuff is all uncertain by design can get very frustrating. O'Neill is attempting, in my reading, to come to grips with this: "I know there are no definite answers, but this is what we DO know, and we have to be okay with just this"
Mike wrote: "Kudos for the review, especially catching that misattribution to page 626 of Helter Skelter. I just double-checked my copy, and I don't see the phrase "something that he learned from others" anywhe..."Thanks! Yes, I think it's definitely questionable.
SpookyBoogie wrote: "I was considering purchasing a copy but knowing that there are no footnotes and the credibility of the author is dubious means I'll borrow it from the library."Good call. I was so glad I borrowed it from the library instead of purchasing it!
Jack wrote: "The combining of the "two parts" I think is important for a book like this, where the truth is never really settles. That's how things are sometimes: the world is unfair and people lie and we will ..."Agreed. I think the combining of the two parts could have been done better, though. I probably would've liked the book more if it had been.
Lou wrote: "thank you for bringing up these points; I totally agree that trying to bring together the reporting and the personal narrative scrambled the potential for either one to be really effective"It felt like he wasn't quite sure how to seamlessly combine the reporting with the personal narrative and if he had some guidance with it, it could have been so much better.
Hi, I have found the full quote for the “learned from others” section you had trouble finding. >”All of these factors contributed to Manson’s control over others. But when you add them all up, do they equal murder without remorse? Maybe, but I tend to think that there is something more, some missing link that enabled him to so rape and bastardize the minds of his followers that they would go against the most ingrained of all commandments, Thou shalt not kill, and willingly, even eagerly, murder at his command. It may be something in his charismatic, enigmatic personality, some intangible quality or power that no one has yet been able to isolate and identify. It may be something he learned from others.”
I have Helter Skelter on mobile and not in physical form so my page numbers may not be accurate but for me this was on page 629. Three pages after the “How Manson gained control remains the most puzzling question of all”. To give O’Neill the benefit of doubt the whole sub chapter was based on that question.
And in your review you say “He left out key information about Dean Moorehouse being Ruth Moorehouses father, which is important later on” when in fact O’Neill goes on the very next page to talk about Dean and especially his daughter Ruth.
Great review. I am still reading Chaos and some of this stuff is driving me crazy.
I was in a bookstore with my mother only yesterday when she spied this book. She read the book jacket out loud and in it, Manson was described as illiterate. This kind of sloppiness, before the book even started, was enough to put me completely off the book. First impressions really do count. My mom bought it for herself anyhow.My recollection, from Helter Skelter and other work I've read about Manson and his gang, and correct me if I'm wrong: Manson didn't really learn to read well till his first stints in prison, and then became an avid reader. "Stranger In a Strange Land" was supposedly one of his favorites, and he also read about Scientology. Also, he's known to have fancied himself a songwriter. That's not really what I'd call literate; not really even what I'd call uneducated. I'd more call him self-educated, somewhat selectively self-educated, no doubt.
No offense, but you should find a new favorite true crime book. O'Neill contributed a huge amount of original interviews and research to this topic, and it's nitpicky of you to complain about a slight inaccuracy in his analysis of Bugliosi's book. Furthermore, said analysis isn't what shatters Bugliosi's credibility. It's Bugliosi's own criminality (covering up evidence, wife-beating, etc), along with O'Neill's disturbing personal experience's with the man.
What would you suggest reading instead?
Have you read 'Now Is The Only Thing That's Real' by Neil Sanders? If so what are your thoughts?
I just started this book, and I don't know if I'm going to continue... if his primary thesis is that 'someone' must have taught Charles Manson to control people with drugs, abuse, sleep deprivation etc. then he clearly knows nothing about cults and cult leaders. And if he's aiming at what I think he might be aiming at, which is collusion with the CIA, I really doubt that's the case. At least, directly. The CIA did introduce LSD to America, and they did shady experiments. Their links to the Unibomber and so many covert operations have been made public, I highly doubt this slid under the radar. Parole officers are notoriously lax. They don't really have the resources to monitor every perpetrator all the time. And I'm sure every prosecuting attorney has been less than ethical on occasion to ensure conviction. Basically, Thanks for the review! If you already know about the CIA and MKUltra, it doesn't sound like it's a 'secret history' of the 60s.
Hey Kelly, just to let you know that the frase quoted in the book “It may have been something he learned from others” actually appears in shelter Skelter as “It may be something he learned from others” in the epilogue, below the isbn of the edition I checked. I’m not sure why he added the word that in the book. ISBN: 978-0-393-07236-5
this review stinks. just say you believe cops 100% of the time and move on, it would make everything a helluva lot easier for the rest of us (meaning we wouldn't have to read through your garbage review to understand you're just another run-of-the-mill bootlicker)
why do you so blindly trust the notoriously corrupt LAPD and LASO? just curious lol
This review needs to be removed. She is lying.
I think is well presented, Imagine study the subject for 20 years and to be totally honest that he stills doesn’t know what happened. The author gives you the new evidence and you have to theorize about what really happened. Is not the happy ending you always crave. But it opens a very weird door of conspiracy between de US government and their citizens. During the reading of the book, I kept thinking about the meth crisis in black American neighborhoods, and how the CIA was involved.
Is this woman related to Bugliosi or something?
Part of your review is incorrect, likely because you looked at a different edition of Helter Skelter. Look up the phrase in Google Books and you can see a photo of the book where the author of Chaos quoted it exactly.I'd share a direct link to the quote in Google Books but Goodreads doesn't allow it.
This is a garbage review. Nitpicking about the way he quoted Helter Skelter being off by a word is such a dumb thing to be upset about. Especially when the quotes provided in Chaos literally say the same thing. And Chaos mentions that Dean Moorehouse is Ruth Anne’s father numerous times throughout the book, which makes sense that he omitted that part of the quote, ya dingus.
Had the same thought/feeling as above, is she related to Bugliosi? I thought the book exceptionally well written, admired O'Neill's passion, commitment and couldn't let it go dedication to follow all leads and report what he found. Fascinating and worth the read.
Just wanted to say thank you for the review - although some of the nastier commentators don't understand about sources and adding or subtracting words (there is an established format you use () for a word added and ... to show where you have left something out) and how inappropriate it is to add or move words from one part of a book to another. They also don't understand that it isn't nit-picking it is a question of accuracy and thus reliability or trustworthiness and why all quotations should be traceable - authors who play fast and loose (David Irving did the same and got away with it until he was found out at his libel trial) sacrifice our trust.I am sure it can't be nice but on some level attracting denunciations as a CIA plant or being a relative of Bugliosi should be treated as a compliment to your skills. I also congratulate you for leaving those insane, and unpleasant comments posted.
Thank you again for a great review which saved me from wasting time on this book.
Liam wrote: "Just wanted to say thank you for the review - although some of the nastier commentators don't understand about sources and adding or subtracting words (there is an established format you use () for..."Just because people are rude, doesn't mean they're wrong. Lol!
I was on the fence about reading this book, and this review has swayed me to leave it alone. Not a CIA plant or a Bugliosi fanboy - but I strongly value accuracy in reporting on topics such as these. Misquoting and leaving words out is a subtle way of changing the narrative without overtly lying and it definitely erodes trust.
Mason wrote: "In fact, you could very well be a CIA plant to discredit the book."Ah-ha, but you might be a CIA plant to discredit a person who is a danger to a CIA conspiracy to make the CIA look bad which is necessary to ensure that the Kree plot is successful against the Krulls. So you get out of here Mr. Secret Krull False Flag Operator.
Quite an unfair review that massively discredits the author. You couldn’t find the direct quote and called the entire book’s accuracy into question. Oh right, you were looking at the wrong page of Helter Skelter….. sheesh. Funny how you use false information to spin a narrative…. I can see why Helter Skelter is your favourite true crime book.All the people who have decided against reading this book because they “value accuracy” should also “value accuracy” of the reviews that they read online…..
I liked both Helter Skelter and Chaos (and I don’t have enough knowledge to choose between them) but your review made me curious, and I went to check O’Neill’s quotes against a hard copy I borrowed from the library. I used the 25th anniversary hardcover edition from 1994 (W.W. Norton), and I found:•on p. 377 it does indeed say “a Dean Moorehouse” (no mention of Ruth Anne)
•on p. 485 there is the whole quote, including the part “something he learned from others”
I took photos of the relevant pages if you want to see them.
I’m wondering if O’Neill consulted multiple editions, and then cited them incorrectly (attributing quotes to the wrong one)?
along with Hal Johnson above I can also confirm that the quotes appear as O'Neill cites them in the copy of Helter Skelter I checked.
I also didn't care for this book. No, I'm not a CIA plant or related to Bugliosi. Reading it was confusing, and it was so disjointed. It read like someone high was breathlessly telling you a conspiracy theory and you should believe them because trust me, bro.
Wow I was told by Candace Owens to read this book which I did and I am mind blown and I would give it a five star!!!
I was skeptical of this book and he may try to put too many things together. But he got Bugliosi's manufacture of motive and evidence right. This is backed up by respected journalist, Ivor Davis's "Manson Exposed" book. Davis was one first journalists to visit Tate house and Manson's ranch. Murders motive may have been Manson wanted throw police off the previous Gary Hinman killing. Recommend Davis book. Chaos film is scheduled for Netflix Mar.7, 2025
Idk what version you have, but end notes in my book literally start with the phrase they are attached to.
This is obviously a person the believes everything the government says😂
I don’t know if you’ve read the book considering there’s a lot of end notes which literally do the opposite of what you’ve said…
Except he didn’t present alternatives to the story. He laid out the FACTS! You obviously didn’t read the book
Yes I agree totally with you on this .
Not sure how you can finish this book and still praise bugliosi. Shut the fuck up 😂
I have disagree with this review. This book is by far the best book I have read in a long time about the corruption in our government!
