Phil Spector on John Lennon assassination

[Myra Bronstein]

...Secondly, as Len says, the timing is wrong, i could buy JEH, and Nixon deciding to have a thirty year old, politically active John removed, but by 1980 his mojo, as far as left wing politics goes, had well and truely waned.

Stephen that question has already been answered multiple times on this thread, if you'll just go back and read.

In addition, if you are interested in this subject then watch the movie The US vs John Lennon at the link I already gave:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...sus+John+Lennon

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

On edit: Replaced the URL since Mike said it doesn't work (thanks Mike).

The same URL given earlier in this thread works fine.

I encourage all who are interested in this subject to watch the film: The US vs John Lennon.

It should answer most, if not all, questions about why the Reagan/Bush CIA dominated gov't wanted John Lennon dead.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Myra Bronstein

[Guest Stephen Turner]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts - look at the Gestalt about Chapman and Lennon et al. Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and persons and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on]. For someone so politically progressive on class and economic issues, I'm usually surprised at your aversion to things conspiratorial, Stephen. See the film. I'll try to find the interview with his close friend about what he was planning just when he was killed. It was NOT publicly known, but those who killed him knew - as they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.

Peter, I'm simply pointing out that the incident Myra uses to butress her claim that John was politically engaged in the late seventies/eighties, actually took place nearly a decade before, at a time when no-one doubts his attraction to a Socialist agenda.

I don't have an aversion to conspiracy, eg, I believe JFK was assassinated at the behest of the ruling cabal(Politico's Industrialists, JCS etc) Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, both MLK, and RFK were murdered by the same people who killed JFK, and for much the same reasons...October surprise, some elements of 911 etc, etc, I just don't happen to think that everything is explainable as a Political conspracy is all.

[Len Colby]

Stephen that question has already been answered multiple times on this thread, if you'll just go back and read.

I think you must be confusing this thread with another one because no evidence has been presented here that Lennon was at politically active since August 1972 over 8 years before he was killed. He stopped being political in 72 but didn’t retire until ’75 or so. But no one tried to kill him 1969 – 75. Why would they do so because he’d just released an album singing about how much he loved his wife and son? That would seem to fit perfectly with their “family values” agenda.

In addition, if you are interested in this subject then watch the movie The US vs John Lennon at the link I already gave:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...sus+John+Lennon

Exactly that film focused on the governments attempts to deport his when he was a “trouble maker” they basically abandoned those efforts when Lennon gave up his activism in 1972.

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist,

Zero evidence has been presented that he was going to become politically active quite the contrary see the excerpts of the interview he gave a few months earlier where he said among other things:

“All of you who are reading this, don't bother sending me all that garbage about, "Just come and save the Indians, come and save the blacks, come and save the war veterans," Anybody I want to save will be helped through our tithing, which is ten percent of whatever we earn.”

All these points have “already been answered multiple times on this thread, if you'll just go back and read”. But I imagine you will remain in your (double) fantasy world where Lennon in 1980 was still the politically active/outspoken person he’s briefly been years earlier rather than the guy whose activism was limited to giving 10% of his earnings to charities selected by ‘mother’ (i.e. Yoko) and said he wasn’t Buddha to the interviewer who suggested he give more.

and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Actually he was released 3 DAYS after the rally. John Sinclair was released because his brother posted bail. From his website:

“I was called out to the visiting room to meet a triumphant Dennis Hayes [his lawyer]. This time I offered no resistance when he told me my brother was on his way up to the state capitol at Lansing to post a S2,500 appeal bond, and I'd be out by nightfall”

http://johnsinclair.us/10for2/index.php?op...27&Itemid=2

But it’s a little more complicated than that, he had previously been denied bail because of other charges against him that were dropped a couple of days before the rally. From the same page:

Meanwhile I'd also been charged by the federal government with conspiring to place an explosive device in the doorway of a clandestine CIA recruiting office just off the University of Michigan campus in September 1968. The charge was lodged against me by Nixon's Justice Department in the fall of 1969 and served the government as an excuse to deny my repeated applications to be released on bond pending the outcome of my appeal.

Note: My state felony conviction was ultimately reversed and the marijuana laws declared unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court in March, 1972

Pre-trial hearings in what we termed the CIA Conspiracy case began in September 1970 with William Kunstler, Leonard Weinglass and Detroit attorney Hugh M. 'Buck' Davis heading the defense effort. A motion to discover if any evidence against us had been obtained by means of illegal wiretaps led to a government admission that one of my co-defendants, Larry 'Pun' Plamondon, had been overheard and recorded on a phone that had been tapped by the Justice Department without a warrant in the interest of what they called 'national security.'

Federal District Judge Damon Keith agreed with us that the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibited warrantless intrusions into citizens' privacy and ordered the government to turn over to the defense the logs of the disputed conversation or dismiss its charges against us. John Mitchell's Justice Department refused to do either one and challenged Judge Keith's ruling by appeal to the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati and, subsequently, to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Keith was ultimately upheld by an 8-0 vote (newly- appointed Justice William Renquist abstaining because he had been one of the drafters of the Justice Department's 'national security wiretap' program). The government then dismissed its case against us rather than reveal the target of their illegal wiretap.

The court might also have been influenced by the fact that the state legislature had reduced the maximum sentence for possessing pot to less than the time he had already served, although they had yet to take effect. From another page on his site:

“Our prolonged assault on the state's draconian marijuana statutes (dating back to 1965 and the formation of Detroit LEMAR) had resulted, just the day before the rally, in a welcome restructuring of the drug laws by the Michigan legislature. Marijuana, long classified as a narcotic drug with a 10-year penalty for simple possession and a minimum-mandatory 20-year sentence (maximum: life imprisonment) for selling, dispensing, or giving away any amount of the evil weed, was redefined as a ‘controlled substance’ carrying a one-year maximum jail sentence for possession and up to four years for its sale. The new law would take effect on April 1, 1972.”

http://johnsinclair.us/10for2/index.php?op...&Itemid=110

And they also might have been influenced by legal issues concerning his case. From the horse's mouth again:

"Getting released from prison was the happiest day of my life so far. The Michigan Supreme Court granted me a bond, so it all came together. First we were agitating to change the marijuana laws based on the contention that pot is not a narcotic. Secondly,

we claimed my sentence amounted to cruel & unusual punishment; and finally, there was the entrapment issue

."

http://www.review-mag.com/archive/640-649/...ohnSinclair.htm

[Len Colby]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts

LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"

Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and persons

Very doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview

and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].

The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming

they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.

That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier

[Myra Bronstein]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Yeah, the John Sinclair concert. That's what I was referring to Stephen.

And you're right about the timing. Thank you.

The point being, that this world famous activist--John Lennon--had huge clout, visibility, popularity, courage, talent, and powers of persuasion. And he had shown all that with his penning of the song "John Sinclair," and his involvement in the Sinclair rally--which was successful and won Sinclair's freedom.

Sinclair received a 10 year prison sentence for possession of two joints, and had only served 3 years when the rally took place.

Then he was released 3 days after the rally.

That is a clear demonstration of clout, and is not the kind of thing the war mongering gov't wanted to see from the famous self-described "peacenik" who was coming out of a long retirement and recording a new album just as the corrupt Reagan/Bush regime was coming into office.

"After a long break from the business, feeling reinvigorated and full of ideas, Lennon wrote an impressive amount of material that later became the comeback album Double Fantasy, which he and Ono produced together. His single, “Just Like Starting Over,” was climbing the singles charts, and Lennon was thinking of starting a world tour, when his life was tragically ended."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3764.html

"In late 1972, when the "surveillance" was at its peak, John Lennon told humorist Paul Krassner, "Listen, if anything happens to Yoko and me, it was not an accident."

The FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tracked John at from at least his "Free John Sinclair" concert in 1969 until 1976, even though by then John had won his immigration battle and dropped out of not only political activism but public life altogether. This turned out to be a five-year period of seclusion to raise his newly born son, Sean. Sean Lennon was born on October 9, 1975, his dad's 35th birthday.

Placing a person under "constant surveillance" and ordering that person executed are admittedly two very different things. Nevertheless, Bresler's point is that the government did not consider John Lennon a harmless rock 'n' roller. John's political publicity stunts such as in his and Yoko's Montreal "Bed-In" and "War Is Over" were always capable of seizing the spotlight and speaking directly to tens of millions of young people who venerated him. With unfettered access to the world's media, his power truly was immense. Because of this, in some circles he was correctly viewed as the most dangerous radical who needed to be stopped. John Lennon was the most dangerous person in the world, to those whose interest is a world under corporate military rule.

John Lennon was assassinated only four years after the intense FBI and CIA surveillance ceased. In those intermittent years, James Earl Carter was President, a Democrat who kept the two agencies more or less in check. Matter of fact, about 1000 CIA was let go under James Earl Carter's Presidency.

But on November 4, 1980, when John Lennon's first album (Double Fantasy) in half a decade was climbing high on the charts, James Earl Carter became a lame duck President. I discovered a very interesting fact about the last three major assassinations in the United States. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Francis Kennedy and John Winston Lennon were all executed during the time of a lame duck Presidency.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson became a lame duck on March 31, 1968 when he said to a national television audience; he would not run for reelection even if the Democrats wanted him to. Four days later Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Sixty-three days later, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California Democratic primary (RFK would have been the Democratic Presidential candidate against the Republican Presidential candidate Richard Milhouse Nixon, and RFK would have won the Presidency). On November 4, 1980 President James Earl Carter lost the Presidential election to Ronald Wilson Reagan, thus becoming a lame duck President. Thirty-four days later, the heartbeat of music for his generation, John Winston Lennon was assassinated.

In every single major assassination these black-op conspirator killers have actually had the balls to blame it on some poor deranged lone gunman. They have had a patsy or a mind controlled Manchurian candidate fall guy for the last four assassinations. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, and the founder and leader of the most influential musical group The Beatles, the person who was his generations and about to be another generations leader for peace and love, John Winston Lennon.

Reagan's campaign was managed by career secret agent William Casey, who under President Reagan became the CIA's most freewheeling chief since Allen Dulles (who JFK fired). The new far-right administration would reassemble the intelligence services and grant them a cheerful carte blanche. Something quite interesting about William Casey, who just happening to die very quickly from a supposed brain tumor on May 6, 1987. He died without ever testifying in the scandal, which most certainly originated with him, the Iran Contra Affair.

The forces that tried desperately to neutralize John Lennon for at least seven years lost power in November of 1976. The Lennon's government dossier ends in that year. In 1980, as those forces were preparing to retake control of the government, "the most dangerous extremist" John Lennon emerged from retirement with the best selling album, Double Fantasy, and was promptly assassinated."

http://www.john-lennon.net/whoauthorizedth...fjohnlennon.htm

[Terry Mauro]

Just stumbled across this blog entry that shows, in my view, that the gov't assassination of John Lennon is widely accepted as a fact:

"Bob Marley was an ambassador of universal global peace. That is why the CIA assassinated him. Great men who are a threat to the elites have been systematically eliminated time and time again (i.e., Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Robert F.Kennedy, and John Lennon).

..."

http://dillsnapcogitation.wordpress.com/20...e-white-devils/

Which raises the issue of Bob Marley's death...

He was, like Lennon, a hugely famous influential artist utterly dedicated to justice and human rights.

He survived one blatant assassination attempt:

"He was nearly murdered in 1976 when he refused to support the U.S. backed puppet presidential candidate of Jamaica. Two days before the “Smile Jamaica” festival Marley’s home was shot up with automatic weapons and he received two bullet wounds."

Nothing sneaky about that, no patsies or mkultra.

But what about his supposed death from cancer? Did he get injected Ruby style?

The below is the first claim I've ever seen that he did:

"The CIA finished the job when Marley tried on a boot that was ostensibly given to him by a fan (who was none other than Carl Colby, the son of CIA Director William Colby). The boot was fitted with a small syringe filled with a fast-acting cancer agent that ended his life prematurely.

...

Melanoma can be injected into the host’s body. Here is a recent study.

“A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs,” notes that as early as 1931, there has been documented federal interest in the creation of a cancer-causing agents: “Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.” In 1975, “the virus section of Fort Detrick’s Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses.”

What are the odds that the son of the CIA director would visit Marley at his home and give him a boot to try on? He yelled “ow” when he slipped it onto his foot. These are powerful inferences that may or may not validate my claim, but they warrant further investigation."

[All quotes from the URL already given.]

What do you guys think about Bob Marley's death? Did a second assassination attempt succeed?

****************************************************

“A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs,” notes that as early as 1931, there has been documented federal interest in the creation of a cancer-causing agents: “Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.” In 1975, “the virus section of Fort Detrick’s Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses.”

Here's an excerpt from an article in my April 2008 Harper's Magazine documenting transmissible cancerous tumors found in Tasmanian Devils off the coast of Australia and New Zealand, how there may be an evolutionary process at work:

CONTAGIOUS CANCER

The evolution of a killer

By David Quammen

The phenomenon of transmissible tumors isn't confined to Tasmanian Devils. There have been human cases.

"Other cases are less easily explained. In 1986, two researchers from the National Institutes Of Health reported that a laboratory worker, a healthy nineteen-year-old woman, had accidentally jabbed herself with a syringe carrying colon-cancer cells; a colonic tumor grew in her hand, but she was rescued by surgery. More recently, a fifty-three-year-old surgeon cut his left palm while removing a malignancy from a patient's abdomen, and five months later he found himself with a palm tumor, one that genetically matched the patient's tumor. His immune system responded creating an inflammation around the tumor, but the response was insufficient and the tumor kept growing. Why? How? It wasn't supposed to be able to do that. Again, though, surgery delivered a full cure. And then there's Henri Vadon. He was a medical student in the 1920s who poked his left hand with a syringe after drawing liquid from the mastectomy wound of a woman being treated for breast cancer. Vadon, too, developed a hand tumor. Three years later, he died of metastasized cancer because neither the surgical techniques of his era nor his own immune system could save him."

Judyth Baker may not have been "just whistling down a well."

[Myra Bronstein]

...Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, ...

I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen.

Either in this thread or another.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

...Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, ...

I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen.

Either in this thread or another.

--------

Myra, I would strongly strongly strongly recomend the book Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan. I first heard of it on this forum and it sprained my hyperbole, for which I had always been proud. Ill just say its a really really really interesting book to read.

Hope I can chime in on your question:

1) Detente-- ironically something that may have done in his debating partner of 1960

2) Centralizing "too much" power within the Whitehouse in the opinion of the CIA and Joint Chiefs-- again similar things were said about JFK and McNamara

3) Rumors that spread in the permanent buraucracy during secret backchannel negotiations-- another possible similarity.

4) wage and price controlls-- anathama to rightist economics

5) PERCEIVED continuation of Keynsian social spending.

6) differences over Vietnam poilicy

7) Kissinger, Henry. Catcher, batting 7th.

8) The War of the FBI succession. I heard that phrase used somewhere. What I think it means is that some saw Nixon as impinging on FBI turf in a similar

way as he was impinging of CIA turf. Here the death of Hoover was significant.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Terry Mauro]

...Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, ...

I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen.

Either in this thread or another.

***********************************************

DL once told me, in so many words, that Nixon never really posed any big threat to the guys running the show in D.C., NYC, or Dallas.

Although, he may have had aristocratic WASP-ish aspirations, he would never have been allowed to join the big boys in their big "board" games as any kind of a major player. Why? Because he came from "Quaker" bloodlines and would never be suited, nor accepted by the American old line of blue-blood society industrialists and bankers. At least, that's what appears to be a logical explanation for his lack of support during the Watergate fiasco. It also explains the lack of respect afforded him by that segment of society which, by and large, graduates from Yale, Harvard, MIT, North Western, and the Chicago School of Economics, etc. He probably was looked upon as a "bidder, or "lacky" of sorts, who would do the "bidding" of the industrial complex. But, what they hadn't counted on was for him to go paranoid on them in the manner he did, especially after the assassinations that took place in the 60's, and his subsequent election thereafter.

The same could be said for that other hand-puppet of the industrialist fascists, Ronald Reagan.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts

LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"

Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and persons

Very doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview

-------------

and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].

The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming

they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.

That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier

----------------

Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.

Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.

LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.

Its about message, its purity, and the degree of access to the national media. Not some vote in a smothered committee. Just ask the Clintons, those can be a bit deceptive.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts

LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"

Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and persons

Very doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview

-------------

and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].

The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming

they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.

That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier

----------------

Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.

Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.

LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.

Its about message, its purity, and the degree of access to the national media. Not some vote in a smothered committee. Just ask the Clintons, those can be a bit deceptive.

[Myra Bronstein]

Yet another reason Lennon was killed [see underlined in article on Brussel below].

Mae Brussell, a gutsy, no-holds-barred, investigative radio host, who was acutely interested in Conspiracies and UFOlogy, died in 1988 of a fast-acting cancer – just as did Ann Livingston and Karla Turner.

...

Omygod, how could I forget to quote Mae on this subject?

Thank you Peter.

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...assination.html

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...hn%20Lennon.jpg

"INTERVIEW WITH MAE BRUSSELL ON THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN ONO LENNON

A short while ago we had the pleasure of talking to noted assassination/conspiracy researcher Mae Brussell at her home in Carmel, California. Mae was kind enough to share some of her thoughts on the murder of John Lennon last December 8, 1980 in New York City. She is just starting her 11th year of broadcasting on radio KLRB, Carmel, CA.

Tom Davis

***************************************

Tom: What would be the motive to kill John Lennon on December 8, 1980? Lennon had been in seclusion for many years and had not yet released his new album.

Mae: Both the date of Lennon's murder, and the careful selection of this particular victim are very important. Six weeks after Lennon's death, Ronald Reagan would become President. Reagan and his soon-to-be appointed cabinet were prepared to build up the Pentagon war machine and increase the potential for war against the USSR. The first strike would fall on small countries like El Salvador and Guatemala. Lennon, alone, was the only man (even without his fellow Beatles) who had the ability to draw out one million anti-war protestors in any given city within 24 hours, if he opposed those war policies.

John Lennon was a spiritual force. He was a giant, like Gandhi, a man who wrote about peace and brotherly love. He taught an entire generation to think for themselves and to challenge authority. Lennon and the Beatles' songs shout out the inequalities life and the messages of change. Change is a threat to the longtime status quo that Reagan's team exemplified.

On my weekly radio broadcast of December 7, 1980, I stated that "the old assassination teams are coming back into power." The very people responsible for covering up the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King, for Watergate and Koreagate, and the kidnapping and murder of Howard Hughes, and for hundreds of other deaths, had only six weeks before they would again be removing or silencing those voices of opposition to their policies.

Lennon was coming out once more. His album was cut. He was preparing to be part of the world, a world which was a worse place since the time he had withdrawn with his family. It was a sure bet Lennon would react and become a social activist again. That was the threat. Lennon realized that there was danger coming back into public view. He took that dangerous chance, and we all lost!

Tom: What is the first clue you look for if you are suspicious of a larger conspiracy to assassinate, whether it is John Lennon, President John F. Kennedy, or the recent attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II?

Mae: There are necessary connecting links in every assassination conspiracy. If any link of that chain falls apart and becomes exposed, the parts of the larger plot are more visible. When every element of that chain holds together and is present in the evidence and testimony regarding any particular murder, there has to be a larger conspiracy. (See accompanying diagram)

The most important link in that chain is the selected decoy or patsy. Whoever is arrested at the scene of the crime, to the exclusion of other suspicious persons, becomes the "assassin." This single person must serve a purpose, namely, to divert all attention away from those people who have armed him and located him at the scene of the crime.

Letters and diaries are always present and easily located to support the predetermined cover story. They provide a "motive", and are the glue that cements (we are told) the "loner" to his single purpose.

In preparation for his "act", the decoy or patsy is moved across countries or overseas, traveling and staying at safe houses. He has no friends, no jobs, no means of support while at the same time staying at fancy hotels, spending lots of money, getting phone messages, and meeting lots of people. Very few people have the money to spend years in transit like these patsies, whose chances of being in selected locations at the precise moment their victim is murdered are minute and impossible without assistance.

...

William Colby's Vietnam Phoenix program, staffed with agents who intensely hated the anti-war, social activists like John Lennon, had both the intent and the means to move persons like Chapman to their training camps and then to specific places planned as sites for future assassinations. Colby came back to the U.S. to become Director of the C.I.A. at a time (1973) when "Operation Chaos" was in full swing against the hippies, rock musicians, and anti-war protestors. Many of them were killed or otherwise neutralized.

...

Tom: You apparently believe there was a government conspiracy to assassinate and silence John Lennon which was conducted by the same people who murdered other political figures and musicians in the past eighteen years?

Mae: Absolutely! The federal government has maintained active programs to eliminate rock musicians and disrupt rock concerts. Senator Frank Church's Committee hearings in 1975 and the FBI Cointel-Programs clearly document the intent to break up any gatherings of the "new left". Nothing brought anti-war demonstrators together with political messages more effectively than music festivals.

There is hard evidence the CIA assigned agents to "investigate the music industry."

...

The murder of John Lennon is the tragic finale to an entire era, the reminder that once an artist becomes as popular and as political as he was, his enemies will be waiting to make sure his messages never appear again to awaken the slumbering youth."

[Much more at the above links.]

[Myra Bronstein]

It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.

Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts

LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"

Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and persons

Very doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview

-------------

and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].

The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming

they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.

That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier

----------------

Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.

Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.

LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.

...

EX-actly.

[Len Colby]

Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s?

Actually yeah I could easily “imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s” just like was silent till the end of 1969 and was again from late 1972 onwards. I didn’t just claim he wasn’t a threat I presented evidence that this was the case, no one has yet produced any evidence he was at all inclined to return to his short lived activist phase. Note that he didn’t retire from music till 1975. 1972 – 5 here released 3 or so albums that were completely apolitical and AKAIK he made no political comments during this period just as his public comments and music were apolitical up to 1969. Lennon as political activist was a short lived fad like being in pseudo-Hinduism. I best cased scenarioed the dates of his activism counting when he performed songs like “Give Peace a Chance”, he was really only a left-wing activist for about a year 1971 – 72 in 1968 he critiqued those who advocated too hard for political change telling them “You better free your mind instead”

“In 1972 he had talked to “anti-war leaders about doing a tour that would combine rock music with anti-war organising and voter registration. That was the key, because it was the first year 18-year-olds had been given the right to vote. Young voters were assumed to be anti-war, but also known to be the least likely of all age groups to vote. Lennon and his friends hoped to do something about that,” according to Jon Wiener, a U. of California – Irvine historian who wrote “Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files, and served as historical consultant on the film The US v John Lennon” According to Wiener this was the real reason for the deportation effort. But of course he didn’t organize such a tour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...19/comment.film

Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his September 1980 interview for Playboy? 2 – 3 months before he was shot he:

- said his Socialism had been due to feeling “guilty about money” his current views were “people should get their false teeth and their health looked after, all the rest of it. But apart from that, I worked for money and I wanted to be rich. So what the hell”

- implored readers “…don't bother sending me all that garbage about, "Just come and save the Indians, come and save the blacks, come and save the war veterans," Anybody I want to save will be helped through our tithing, which is ten percent of whatever we earn.”

- And when the interviewer asked “Why does anyone need $150,000,000? Couldn't you be perfectly content with $100,000,000? Or $1,000,000?” said “What would you suggest I do? Give everything away and walk the streets?” Yeah he need all that money to but heads of cattle and luxury homes

It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam.

Not for about 8 years, what myth are you refering to?

HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY

He COULD but seems very unlikely to have actually done so, so could lots of left-leaning celebrities.

NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.

A few months before he was killed, John ,“I worked for money and I wanted to be rich” I’m content as long as “people get their false teeth and their health looked after” “I used to be…guilty about money” don’t ask me to give away more than 10% of my income I need the rest to buy cattle, Lennon didn’t sound that different from the fake “liberal” skewered by Phil Ochs.

Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure.

Lennon hadn’t been “a REAL opposition figure” for over 8 years and had only been one for 3, which is why the FBI stopped paying attention to him in 1972. If he had been “a REAL opposition figure” why didn’t he lift a finger to stop Regan from getting elected in 1980 when already had his green card? Why didn’t risk being deported and go on that tour in 1972? ‘Hey guys I’d really love to help you end the war and all but I don’t want to have to move back to dreary old England, my Greenwich Village loft is so cool’.

See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.

Uuh Lennon’s skin color made hi ineligible for that role

LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda but the evidence indicates he wouldn’t have done so.