Phil Spector on John Lennon assassination

[Len Colby]

In addition to Mae's close friends and weekly listeners, she corresponded and networked with such people as Jim Garrison, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, and Larry Flynt. Her first published article in Paul Krassner's The Realist was actually financed by John Lennon. And Frank Zappa once gave her a computer for filing and cross-indexing her research (but she never used it).

Oh I get it Lennon supposedly financed and obscure article, by an obscure author in a fairly obscure magazine so the MIBH whacked him 8 - 9 YEARS LATER, yeah makes a lot of sense to me.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

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.

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

Congrats Len on taking the bait on that one. Clearly you deliberatly misinterpreted the point. It was about acess to coast to caost national media, and you CHOSE TO MISINTERPRET, BUT WHAT ELSE IS NEW!

"I presented evidence that this was the case, no I presented evidence that this was the case, no" NO LEN. THAT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The arguement was about the Reagan years. 1980 was before they began and before the hard right turn was stamped into national consciousness. THE POINT IS THE EXTREME CONTRAST. You have taken a few quotes out of context and ignored a lot of other evidence that Lennon was still very much interested in politics.

What you call evidence here makes other "evidence" seem rock solid by comparison.

What myth The stabbed us in the back myth that was already being cultivated during the Reagan years in Rambo and countless other books and talkshows. The point is how this would have contrasted with the lived experience with someone who could have actually called out the lies coast to coast.

Your argument completely misses the point: the early and mid 1980s witnesed an extreme media makeover in US historical memory. A coast to coast media challenge to that air-brushing was a threat.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

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

"HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALY-MOUTH FAKE CRITIQUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT."

And, let us all not forget why Operation Mockingbird was created in 1947 by the British and American OSS affiliation, in the first place.

If I'm not mistaken, television was invented as a primary venue for the psychological manipulation and control of masses of humanity, albeit presented in the form of an entertainment diversion. To this day, it serves as the major vehicle for molding public opinion and promoting sales of consumer goods, as well as for controlling the political campaign machinations, of which the majority of the "public" STILL cannot seem to grasp the fact of how this VISUAL "aid" or application IS, and CONTINUES to be used against them.

It has already been medically demonstrated via Brain Scan SPECT Analysis how susceptible and vulnerable the human brain may be when visually manipulated through the use of simple tasks or visual stimulation which, over time and exposure to said stimuli may, in some cases, permanently alter its chemical response to certain stimuli in the exact same way it would react to that of a drug-induced stimuli.

It was stated above that John Lennon's "call-to-arms" for a demonstration against an unpopular cause, and the power he wielded over a generation could be reason enough to silence him. Especially, since he had the balls to voice his opinion and knew exactly how to use Mockingbird's own devices against them for his own gain, and to the perceived betterment of a country.

And also, let us never forget his statement on national radio and T.V. about how The Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ. He was right! And, "The

Right" was all over him like flies on dog doo-doo for blaspheming another tried and true mind control tactic used by the fascists for centuries, since The Dark Ages.

IMHO, this was enough reason for them to want to snuff him, Marley, or any other musician or popular figure who ran counter-culture to the scheme being perpetrated by the dictates of the puppeteers pulling the strings in this country, or any other country considered to be part of the "free" world.

Can someone please enlighten me as to what it means when the title of this thread reads, "Moved:" and to where, exactly it has been moved?

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

In addition to Mae's close friends and weekly listeners, she corresponded and networked with such people as Jim Garrison, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, and Larry Flynt. Her first published article in Paul Krassner's The Realist was actually financed by John Lennon. And Frank Zappa once gave her a computer for filing and cross-indexing her research (but she never used it).

Oh I get it Lennon supposedly financed and obscure article, by an obscure author in a fairly obscure magazine so the MIBH whacked him 8 - 9 YEARS LATER, yeah makes a lot of sense to me.

-------

Len where do you get the cash to feed all your straw dogs?

[Terry Mauro]

In addition to Mae's close friends and weekly listeners, she corresponded and networked with such people as Jim Garrison, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, and Larry Flynt. Her first published article in Paul Krassner's The Realist was actually financed by John Lennon. And Frank Zappa once gave her a computer for filing and cross-indexing her research (but she never used it).

Oh I get it Lennon supposedly financed and obscure article, by an obscure author in a fairly obscure magazine so the MIBH whacked him 8 - 9 YEARS LATER, yeah makes a lot of sense to me.

-------

Len where do you get the cash to feed all your straw dogs?

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

"Len where do you get the cash to feed all your straw dogs?"

Oh, and BTW, Len. I keep forgetting to ask. Why do you live in Brazil? Are you an ex-patriot, or merely searching for more "Boys From Brazil?"

And, I'm not trying to be facetious here by asking, either.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

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

"HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALY-MOUTH FAKE CRITIQUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT."

And, let us all not forget why Operation Mockingbird was created in 1947 by the British and American OSS affiliation, in the first place.

If I'm not mistaken, television was invented as a primary venue for the psychological manipulation and control of masses of humanity, albeit presented in the form of an entertainment diversion. To this day, it serves as the major vehicle for molding public opinion and promoting sales of consumer goods, as well as for controlling the political campaign machinations, of which the majority of the "public" STILL cannot seem to grasp the fact of how this VISUAL "aid" or application IS, and CONTINUES to be used against them.

It has already been medically demonstrated via Brain Scan SPECT Analysis how susceptible and vulnerable the human brain may be when visually manipulated through the use of simple tasks or visual stimulation which, over time and exposure to said stimuli may, in some cases, permanently alter its chemical response to certain stimuli in the exact same way it would react to that of a drug-induced stimuli.

It was stated above that John Lennon's "call-to-arms" for a demonstration against an unpopular cause, and the power he wielded over a generation could be reason enough to silence him. Especially, since he had the balls to voice his opinion and knew exactly how to use Mockingbird's own devices against them for his own gain, and to the perceived betterment of a country.

And also, let us never forget his statement on national radio and T.V. about how The Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ. He was right! And, "The

Right" was all over him like flies on dog doo-doo for blaspheming another tried and true mind control tactic used by the fascists for centuries, since The Dark Ages.

IMHO, this was enough reason for them to want to snuff him, Marley, or any other musician or popular figure who ran counter-culture to the scheme being perpetrated by the dictates of the puppeteers pulling the strings in this country, or any other country considered to be part of the "free" world.

Can someone please enlighten me as to what it means when the title of this thread reads, "Moved:" and to where, exactly it has been moved?

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

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

O.K. I found it. I forgot there was a sub-section here.

[Len Colby]

Congrats Len on taking the bait on that one. Clearly you deliberatly misinterpreted the point. It was about acess to coast to caost national media, and you CHOSE TO MISINTERPRET, BUT WHAT ELSE IS NEW!

The question is not just access but what he might do with it, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, Tom Petty, Blondie, Olivia-Newton-John, the Captain and Tennille, Bob Seger, Pat Benatar, Led Zeppelin and Kenny Rogers among others sold more albums and/or singles than Lennon, but no one bumped them off. Access to media would only be a problem if the artist was problem and Lennon in 1980 was ‘well behaved’ and not a threat to anyone.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/year...s&year=1980

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/year...s&year=1980

http://members.tripod.com/michele840/id39.htm

"I presented evidence that this was the case, no I presented evidence that this was the case, no" NO LEN. THAT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The arguement was about the Reagan years. 1980 was before they began and before the hard right turn was stamped into national consciousness. THE POINT IS THE EXTREME CONTRAST.

Extreme contrast to what? The Nixon years? He shut up 2 years before Tricky Dick departed. To the Carter years, you just said that Democrats from 1976 onward only offered a “MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE” of “US POLICY”. Since he did absolutely nothing to prevent Regan from getting elected and bailed on his plan to go on tour during the 1972 election what makes you think he would have done something in the 1980? By 1980 he was too absorbed into his world of Yoko and Sean and their luxury life style of buying expensive art work, palacetious homes and heads of cattle. He said so himself.

You have taken a few quotes out of context and ignored a lot of other evidence that Lennon was still very much interested in politics.

Please show any evidence ‘Lennon was still very much at all interested in politics’ after 1972 especially in 1980,none has been presented on this thread so far. Then show how I took any of his comments out of context.

What myth The stabbed us in the back myth that was already being cultivated during the Reagan years in Rambo and countless other books and talkshows. The point is how this would have contrasted with the lived experience with someone who could have actually called out the lies coast to coast.

Your argument completely misses the point: the early and mid 1980s witnesed an extreme media makeover in US historical memory. A coast to coast media challenge to that air-brushing was a threat.

But as I’ve repeatedly pointed out Lennon was unlikely to have presented such a challenge.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[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.

--------

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.

Thanks for the book recommendation Nathaniel; I'll look for it.

Not sure I understand some of the items on your list.

For example #7. Are you saying the CIA wanted to get rid of Kissinger?

And, can you elaborate on #8. Are you saying Hoover was one of the conspirators against Nixon or a victim like Nixon?

[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.

Thanks for the book recommendation Nathaniel; I'll look for it.

Not sure I understand some of the items on your list.

For example #7. Are you saying the CIA wanted to get rid of Kissinger?

And, can you elaborate on #8. Are you saying Hoover was one of the conspirators against Nixon or a victim like Nixon?

-------

Myra, I am aware of Kissingers CIA ties during the 1950s and maybe later.

But I think much of that crew may have been worried about Special K centralizing too much power in the White House. In addition to worrying about missile detante and Ping Pong Dipolomacy. It was not too long afterwards that Team B was created by George Bush with the exlpoicit purpose of countering these Kissinger led initiatives.

Was Al Haig in charge there? Then? One word of caution: reading of Secret Agenda should not be mixed with reading the much less solid book Ultimate Sacrifice. This is like alcohol and barbituates: both mixtures could well lead to excesive specution on the career of Al Haig! I have had to take precautionary measures on certain occasions.

As far as the FBI it is worth noting that Hoover as in J. Edgar did voice qualms about violating civil liberties. According to Peter Dale Scott in the Road to 9/11 J. Edgar chose his civil liberties day as one day in 1970 when he refussed to cooperate with the Huston plan, on the STATED GROUNDS that its proposal of secret recordings would be a threat to privacy and civil liberties!

Before we rush to recommend that the ACLU create a J. Edgar Hoover award, we should realize that J. Edgars reasoning was less than idealisitc. He was worried that the Huston Plan would infringe on FBI turf. When Hoover died, many within the FBI were wondering if there might be renewed attempts to bring parts of FBI turf inside the White House.

[Len Colby]

I assume Myra, Peter and Nathaniel are talking this thread off on a tangent because they have no evidence

- Lennon was politically active post summer of 1972 or

- there were indications he was going to become active again.

Even 1969 – 72 his dedication to the cause was rather limited He went to only (at best) half a dozen rally’s in those 3 years. He spoke about going on an anti-Nixon tour but didn't. Yeah he gave money here and there but with his fortune he could have done a lot more. He supposedly financed a single article in the Realist but could have bankrolled the whole magazine and lots of other causes. I imagine the total of his contributions to radical causes was less than he spent on any one of several luxury properties like the Palm Beach estate formerly own by Harold Vanderbilt he bought in 1979.

http://www.fodors.com/world/north%20americ...ity_179086.html

His appeal as a leftist leader was also limited. He released only one politically charged album “Some Time in New York City” in 1972 only 2 years after leaving the most popular rock band of all time and one year after releasing Imagine the most popular album of 1971 but it was a complete flop.

Lennon wasn’t a threat to anyone in 1980 just look at his Playboy interview from September of that year. If he was so opposed to Reagan agenda he could have spoken up or donated money to the Democrats but he didn't, his "guilt about money/socialist" phase was long over.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Sure Len thats why the FBI threw away all of their files on Lennon in 1980, and invited John over for a glass of Zinfandell.

You can tabula rasa faster then Rupert Murdoch. Unfortunately your makeover of lennon during the years he was spending with his young sons has no bearing whatsoever in reality.

[Len Colby]

Sure Len thats why the FBI threw away all of their files on Lennon in 1980, and invited John over for a glass of Zinfandell.

You can tabula rasa faster then Rupert Murdoch. Unfortunately your makeover of lennon during the years he was spending with his young sons has no bearing whatsoever in reality.

What are you talking about Nathaniel? The FBI doesn't toss out peoples files but according to the historian who wrote a book about Lennon's they stopped surveilling him in 1972. I didn't make him over, he made himself over. In 1972 he said he would do an anti-Nixon tour but didn't. He did a couple of shows where he played a few songs people might find vaguely threatening and then put out light pop and covers and played Lucy in Sky With Diamonds on an Elton John's Thanksgiving TV special etc before disappearing and started buying up expensive art and homes. When he remerged a few years later to put out yet another nonthreatening pop album (and rehearsing for yet another) he implored his fans not to send him their 'crap about the black and Indians' and told the interviewer his contribution to changing the world would be limited to giving 10% of his income to causes selected by "mother" (i.e. Yoko).

What "has no bearing whatsoever in reality" is your belief that he was the same guy in 1980 that he had been in 1971 despite not being able to present any evidence he was still interested in politics, that short lived phase of his life was long over on the night of December 8, 1980. His Playboy interview and 8+ years of silence about anything political indicate you are wrong. Note that he remained musically active for another 3 years

You think I'm wrong? Then go ahead, present evidence that I am.

[Kathleen Collins]

Also look at the timing, i.e., who was coming into office in just a few weeks and did not want a world famous peacenik dogging them.

Myra, I don't believe Ronald Reagan had anything to do with Lennon's death. Remember Bush 41 tried to have Reagan assassinated shortly after he took office so he could become President and work for the Elites. It didn't happen. I don't think Reagan was "in" on many things the right-wing did. IMO.

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

Please show any evidence ‘Lennon was still very much at all interested in politics’ after 1972 especially in 1980,none has been presented on this thread so far. Then show how I took any of his comments out of context.[\quote]

Early in the seventies, I watched an annoying show hosted by David Frost. Basically, John and Yoko were talking about Attica (John wrote a song about it). The two said prisoners should be set free. Yoko (yelling) said the reason these people have committed crimes is because they weren't loved. Now where would all these unloved prisoners go to live? The Dakota? Lennon was living in an ivory tower, IMO.

Near his death, Lennon wrote a song called "Watching the Wheels." Lyrics: 'I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round. I really love to watch them roll. No longer riding on the merry-go-round. I just had to let it go. I just had to let it go. I just had to let it go.'

Seems pretty passive to me.

Kathy

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Sure Len thats why the FBI threw away all of their files on Lennon in 1980, and invited John over for a glass of Zinfandell.

You can tabula rasa faster then Rupert Murdoch. Unfortunately your makeover of lennon during the years he was spending with his young sons has no bearing whatsoever in reality.

What are you talking about Nathaniel? The FBI doesn't toss out peoples files but according to the historian who wrote a book about Lennon's they stopped surveilling him in 1972. I didn't make him over, he made himself over. In 1972 he said he would do an anti-Nixon tour but didn't. He did a couple of shows where he played a few songs people might find vaguely threatening and then put out light pop and covers and played Lucy in Sky With Diamonds on an Elton John's Thanksgiving TV special etc before disappearing and started buying up expensive art and homes. When he remerged a few years later to put out yet another nonthreatening pop album (and rehearsing for yet another) he implored his fans not to send him their 'crap about the black and Indians' and told the interviewer his contribution to changing the world would be limited to giving 10% of his income to causes selected by "mother" (i.e. Yoko).

What "has no bearing whatsoever in reality" is your belief that he was the same guy in 1980 that he had been in 1971 despite not being able to present any evidence he was still interested in politics, that short lived phase of his life was long over on the night of December 8, 1980. His Playboy interview and 8+ years of silence about anything political indicate you are wrong. Note that he remained musically active for another 3 years

You think I'm wrong? Then go ahead, present evidence that I am.

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

Len you string together a few isolated quotes and act like you have proven something.

In reality Lennon was not a very public figure btw. 75-80. A son was born in 1975. He went to the inaugural Ball of Jimmy Carter in 1977. You might remember that Jimmy Carter still had some progressive strands in the first two years of his administration, before they were killed by Tip O'Neil and the Democratic Congressional Committe leaders, who voted with republicans to kill almost all of Carters proposed reforms.

The main point is the the Reagan Administration of 1981 was a sudden and hard right turn, in terms of public perception. Sure the last two years of Carter were more conservative. but 1980 81 was a sea-change. To act like John lennon with a history of activism and a history of documented Goverment worry about that activism, would have behaved like some

some hazed over 70s SuperGroup-- well THAT is what is in need of much more proof.

During the 1980s nobody was allowed on TV who gave a principled opposition to Reagans lies. Much the same way as today.

Lennon was instant prime-time with a long history of political activism, that had been interupted for five years with the birth of his son in 1975. If you are trying to turn him into Billy Joel YOU are the one in need of much more evidence.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer