The U.S. vs. John Lennon

[Kat]

While we are waiting for the rest of the votes to come in on the Two Virgins poll over in the Art Gallery, I encourage everyone to check out "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" a new documentary film released by Lionsgate. I saw it about a week ago and it was very good. It is now in art film houses and will have a wider release soon. I will say I am very disappointed that this film has received much promotion. I hope Lionsgate does better promotion with the Atlas Shrugged movie.

John & Yoko used their celebrity and creativity to promote the peace movement. They knew the world was watching and understood the power of celebrity. John and Yoko were pioneers in celebrity activism. I know many O'ists don't like him or his political views, but after seeing this film you may find that he was actually more in line with libertarian views than you may have thought. He called for the President to declare peace and end the Vietnam war. Give Peace a Chance became an anthem for a generation. It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand was also opposed to the Vietnam war and the draft too. Duncan Scott of the Objectivist History Project had touched upon that topic a bit in his talk at the TOC summer seminar, which was very interesting.

Kat

[Peri]

While we are waiting for the rest of the votes to come in on the Two Virgins poll over in the Art Gallery, I encourage everyone to check out "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" a new documentary film released by Lionsgate. I saw it about a week ago and it was very good. It is now in art film houses and will have a wider release soon. I will say I am very disappointed that this film has received much promotion. I hope Lionsgate does better promotion with the Atlas Shrugged movie.

John & Yoko used their celebrity and creativity to promote the peace movement. They knew the world was watching and understood the power of celebrity. John and Yoko were pioneers in celebrity activism. I know many O'ists don't like him or his political views, but after seeing this film you may find that he was actually more in line with libertarian views than you may have thought. He called for the President to declare peace and end the Vietnam war. Give Peace a Chance became an anthem for a generation. It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand was also opposed to the Vietnam war and the draft too. Duncan Scott of the Objectivist History Project had touched upon that topic a bit in his talk at the TOC summer seminar, which was very interesting.

Kat

Well Kat, I've loved John Lennon since 1977! (was born in 1963, too young to catch the first wave of Beatlemania). Michael and I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago. I loved it; I can't speak for Michael but I'm pretty sure he found it interesting.

As to Lennon's political stance--I don't think he was a truly political animal when you got right down to it. Or, maybe more to the point--I don't know that he thought through his political stance. Perhaps he should have checked his premises. I suppose if he ever sat down and thought it through, he'd probably find himself more on the libertarian side than communist.

In one of his final interviews (the one in Playboy) he told the interviewer, David Sheff, that he and Yoko tithed their earnings into various causes--and I remember reading around that time that they bought and donated turkeys to poor families around Thanksgiving and bought bulletproof vests for the NYPD--which I prefer to think of as BENEVOLENT rather than ALTRUISTIC.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie and it reminded me just how much I miss John Lennon.

[Chris Grieb]

I'm old enough to remember Beatlemania. I thought the prosecutetion of John and Yoko was wrong. I think I plan to see the movie. Kat it's true that documentionarys don't get big budgets for distribution and advertising and many deserve more.

[Rodney]

Actually, at some point, Lennon got disaffected with all the activists using him and asking for his involvement with their causes.

He was no thinker, that's for sure. But toward the end he seemed to have gotten a clue or two, especially when Sean was born. He even got reconciled to his Beatles past, collecting memorabilia (such as bobblehead Beatle dolls) and saying, "Why didn't I just let myself enjoy all that instead of whining all the time?" (this is not verbatim). One more indication, to my mind, of McCartney having more on the ball than his partner.

Edited October 17, 2006 by ashleyparkerangel

[Matus1976]

I very much dislike John Lennon, and as I understand his political views were much more anarcho-socialist than they were libertarian. I wish he would have died sooner, and his politically naïve influence would have ended with him. If there is any doubt of his political leanings, refer to the lyrics of Imagine. Her opposition to the Vietnam war is one of the very few points I disagree with Rand strongly on, an opinion I have come to after studying much of the history of the region and the aftermath of the war.

While the opposition to the draft was absolutely justified, in the larger geopolitical context of the era, that of containing the spread of soviet communism, the Vietnam war was a justified war and was in our self interest. It is interesting to note that Nixon DID declare peace and end the war, and Kissinger and one of the generals of the North Vietnamese army received the Nobel Peace prize. The war was OVER and WON in early 1973. Nixon did not resign until more than a year after the war was over and won.

But of course the communist north disgregarded the Paris peace accords and continually attacked South Vietnam. By May of 1973 there were no combat troops left in Vietnam and South Vietnam was more than capable of defending itself against the perpetual invasions launched by the north, it only required military material aide, just as we have provided with South Korea over the past 50 years. However the democratically controlled congress soon made it illegal to provide any aide, even only military aide, in Indochina, thus condemning the South Vietnamese to slaughter and communist imprisonment. In two years the Soviet backed north over ran the globally isolated defenses of the south, and Saigon fell in April of 1975. In the 6 months following the fall of Saigon more people were killed in Vietnam than were killed in the whole of the Vietnam war. In one particular incident more than 70,000 ‘boat people’ (refugees who had fled to the south china sea) were forced to drown at sea because neighboring nations did not want to deal with refugees. Note this was more than the number of Americans killed in the entire war. The North Vietnamese communists eventually spread communism to Laos and Cambodia, the latter of which committed one of the worst genocides in the history of mankind. Laos and North Vietnam are still incredibly brutal states today, and Freedom House ranks both in the bottom 20 of nations on earth.

The Vietnam war was in our self interest because it helped to contain the global spread of communism. At the height of the Vietnam war more than half of the Soviet Unions global foreign aide was funneled into Vietnam. The Vietnam war delayed the spread of communism into many other nations around China, and drove a major wedge between Chinese communism and Soviet Communism, which remained until the collapse of the Soviet union.

The opponents of the Vietnam war, after the draft was indeed, were almost entirely funded by global communist parties. At every step of the war the media perpetually reported inaccurately or with gross distortions. One infamous case was that of a South Vietnamese generally executing a North Vietnamese prisoner, caught on camera. The South Vietnamese general was a close friend of the then prime minister of South Vietnam Nguyen Cao Ky, who has gone record stating that the general in question was the most honest general in the army. At one point he investigated some of Ky’s own family members for suspected corruption, and given the corruption in the previous administration this was a noble undertaken. Ky admired him and historically Ky is now considered one of the best prime ministers of South Vietnam. The man executed had just killed many members of the family of a friend of the generals and this was witnessed by the general himself. Yet the newspapers still labeled him as a ‘suspect’ The journalist who took the photo, and was later awarded a pulitzer prize for it, later stated that it was the worst photo he took in his life and he wished he never had. He knew how that incident was spun and was a major salient point in the changing of public opinion about the war in Vietnam. Consider also the Hue massacre, where the North Vietnamese communists killed over 4,000 civilians on the eve of one of Vietnam’s most important holidays, burying many in a mass grave still in the celebratory clothing. This massacre ran on page 5 of the New York Times. The Mai Lai Massacre, where US Soldiers killed over 100 civilians was splashed on the front page of every newspaper. The bias was persistent and perpetual through the course of the war and did a lot to change public opinion enough to simply abandon Vietnam. The very vocal protests of people like Jane Fonda and John Lennon did a lot to raise public awareness of incredibly disengenous over simplifications of a complex geo political situation, and probably directly influenced public opinion which eventually led to the callous disregard and abandonment of Vietnam. This abandonment led to the murders of nearly 4.5 million people throughout Indochina *after the war ended*. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.

Any documentary about John Lennon at this time should be titled “John Lennon vs the people of South Vietnam”

[Michael Russell]

Matus1976: "I wish he would have died sooner, and his politically naïve influence would have ended with him."

How charming. Do you really believe that John Lennon had a major influence on turning public opinion against the Vietnam War?

Matus1976: "The opponents of the Vietnam war, after the draft was indeed, were almost entirely funded by global communist parties."

Care to back that allegation up with some proof?

Now for my thoughts on the movie. The documentary "The U.S. Vs. John Lennon" disturbed me. It made clear to me the fascist parallels between the Nixon and Bush 2 administrations. It seems to me that the current Bush administration is using the tired old Nixonian script with regards to war and dissent.

Mick

[Matus1976]

Matus1976: "I wish he would have died sooner, and his politically naïve influence would have ended with him."

How charming. Do you really believe that John Lennon had a major influence on turning public opinion against the Vietnam War?

Matus1976: "The opponents of the Vietnam war, after the draft was indeed, were almost entirely funded by global communist parties."

Care to back that allegation up with some proof?

Now for my thoughts on the movie. The documentary "The U.S. Vs. John Lennon" disturbed me. It made clear to me the fascist parallels between the Nixon and Bush 2 administrations. It seems to me that the current Bush administration is using the tired old Nixonian script with regards to war and dissent.

Mick

Lennon was an idealogical communist or an anarcho-socialist, as such he was anti-life, anti-mind, and anti-human. No idealogy in the world has been more harmful to human life than communism has been. I find it very odd that objectivist would find him 'charming' and worthy of any praise, even if America's system at the time had faults, he was not working to correct them, but to enact an even worse system of statist slavery.

Did he have a major influence on public opinion? I don't know, how do we quantify such a thing? I think he did have a significant influence, perhaps not a 'major' one though. Even so, I hold him responsible for his own direct actions and the ideas he promulgated, without even trying to assess how succesfull he was at promulgating them. Whether or not an advocate of oppression and slavery gets another person to believe his non sense does not change the fact that he is spewing very harmful nonsense himself and as such I can morally condemn him all I want.

I don't care to go into an exhaustive examination of the Vietnam war protests, any rudimentary investigation will reveal it if you are truly interested, for starters look at the declassified soviet communications of the time and puruse any protest photos and you'll see plenty of communist front organizations flags and outright communist flags.

I find it disturbing that people are so willing to jump on the bandwagon of comparing vietnam to iraq but know absoultely nothing about either. They are more than willing to overlook that fact that a premature withdrawel from Vietnam led to 4.5 million murders while they cry about learning lessons. Abandoning the middle east, again, to murderous terrorism, will thrust the whole of that part of the world into many more decades of brutal oppression, just as abandoning South Vietnam thrust indochina into murderous communism and sticking by South Korea has now made it one of the richest, freest, and most productive nations on earth.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Matus1976,

Your analysis of post-Vietnam sounds accurate to me.

There is an critical element you left out of the PR analysis, though. The American people are very tolerant up to point. When they discern that they have been grossly lied to by their leader and his staff, they slowly turn and then they become merciless. This is happening with Bush now.

I don't know why these leaders feel such a strong need to lie to their constituents, but things like photos of filled bodybags arriving when the low casualties have been formally reported (I remember this from back during the Vietnam times) do far more PR damage than any 1000 Jane Fondas and John Lennons combined.

Then there are also all those fat war supplies and munitions contracts that always seem to be awarded to cronies. Not good PR at all.

I don't see very much destructive influence exercised by Lennon on the Vietnam war. I don't like his anarchistic views and I am not a major fan of his. Peace is certainly not a bad idea for mankind, though, and I see "Imagine" generally used as an overall hymn for mankind, not one to blast this side or that side in this war or that.

Look at what he said around that time on TV. The following is from an interview on The David Frost Show, June 14, 1969, and available on Wikiquote here:

We're trying to sell peace, like a product, you know, and sell it like people sell soap or soft drinks. And it's the only way to get people aware that peace is possible, and it isn't just inevitable to have violence. Not just war — all forms of violence. People just accept it and think 'Oh, they did it, or Harold Wilson [british prime minister at the time] did it, or Nixon did it,' they're always scapegoating people. And it isn't Nixon's fault. We're all responsible for everything that goes on, you know, we're all responsible for Biafra and Hitler and everything. So we're just saying "SELL PEACE" — anybody interested in peace just stick it in the window. It's simple but it lets somebody else know that you want peace too, because you feel alone if you're the only one thinking 'wouldn't it be nice if there was peace and nobody was getting killed.' So advertise yourself that you're for peace if you believe in it.

How on earth can something like that be said to be a reason for the US Government mismanaging the end of the Vietnam war? There were a whole lot more publicly influential things going on at the time.

I think Lennon's remark that the Beatles was "just another rock band" just as easily applies to himself. He was just another pop singer in a vast culture of pop singers.

Still, can you imagine the following song?

All you need is war

(baahm-ba ba-da-daah)

All you need is war

(baahm-ba ba-da-daah)

All you need is war, is war

War is all you need.

Michael

[Michael Russell]

Matus1976: "Lennon was an idealogical communist or an anarcho-socialist, as such he was anti-life, anti-mind, and anti-human. No idealogy in the world has been more harmful to human life than communism has been."

I doubt that Lennon thought his politics through enough to be considered an "idealogical communist" or an "anarcho-socialist". I could care less about John Lennon's naivete and flakiness. He was a singer and guitarist for one of the greatest rock n' roll bands ever, and he wrote some beautiful songs. That's what matters to me.

Matus1976 "I find it very odd that objectivist would find him 'charming' and worthy of any praise, even if America's system at the time had faults, he was not working to correct them, but to enact an even worse system of statist slavery."

I'm not an Objectivist, I'm a libertarian. My "charming" comment was sarcastic and directed at you and your insensitive comment regarding Lennon's death. Whatever his politics, he certainly wasn't guilty of a capital offense. Show some compassion. Oh yeah, you're an Objectivist.

Matus1976: "I don't care to go into an exhaustive examination of the Vietnam war protests, any rudimentary investigation will reveal it if you are truly interested, for starters look at the declassified soviet communications of the time and puruse any protest photos and you'll see plenty of communist front organizations flags and outright communist flags."

I don't deny that communist front groups were involved in the anti-war protests. I question your assertion that the protests were "funded" by the communists.

Matus1976: "I find it disturbing that people are so willing to jump on the bandwagon of comparing vietnam to iraq but know absoultely nothing about either. They are more than willing to overlook that fact that a premature withdrawel from Vietnam led to 4.5 million murders while they cry about learning lessons. Abandoning the middle east, again, to murderous terrorism, will thrust the whole of that part of the world into many more decades of brutal oppression, just as abandoning South Vietnam thrust indochina into murderous communism and sticking by South Korea has now made it one of the richest, freest, and most productive nations on earth."

This is not the proper thread in which to debate the corollaries between the Vietnam conflict and the occupation of Iraq. Under the Bush 2 administration civil liberties are eroding at a rate not seen since the Nixon administration. This is troubling to me. I believe that the movie "The U.S. Vs. John Lennon" serves as a reminder of the dangers of the abuse of power. We must be forever vigilant against the threat of creeping fascism.

Mick

[Victor Pross]

Mick,

I'm not an Objectivist, I'm a libertarian. My "charming" comment was sarcastic and directed at you and your insensitive comment regarding Lennon's death.

It is Insensitive indeed—revolting. A great artist like John Lennon was gunned down at the age of 40 by a lunatic and this person makes light of it--applauds it. That's appalling. John Lennon suffered a horrible death and he didn’t deserve such a fate. But leave it to a troglodyte to take any displeasure to a person and any manner of misfortune that befalls that person is A-ok with them. Amazing.

If Kat does publish the Lennon and Ono caricature, I want it to be known that it is a lighthearted caricature as I respected John Lennon and have been a Beatles fan from the age of ten or so. John Lennon’s politics might have been misguided –but that’s okay, he was not a politician. He was a musician--and his gift to the world was his beautiful music. My caricature is a humorous tribute.

Victor

Edited October 18, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Kat]

Matus, I take it you don't like my taste in music. Whatever... to each his own, nobody is forcing you to see the movie or like John and Yoko, but I do think that your comments are cruel and inappropriate. Think what you will, but I disagree and will have no part that kind of hatred. You can keep it. Ick! Bad karma, man.

Peri, I can relate to what you are saying. I've been a huge Beatle fan since I was a kid and its nice to be able to talk to someone who likes both Lennon and Rand too. They both stood for individuality and personal freedom and were persecuted for their ideas. Rand seemed like one of the few people on the right speaking out against the Vietnam war at the time. A corrupt government drafting our young men to fight in a foreign civil war is American politics at its worst.

Kat

[Jonathan]

I remember seeing a compilation of interviews in which Russian leaders credited/blamed the Beatles for playing a part in bringing down the Soviet Union. Contraband Beatles recordings gave millions of Russians a sense of hope and an idea of what the world might be like where fun, happiness and freedom were the norm.

J

_____

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup

They slither wildly as they slip away across the universe

Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind

Possessing and caressing me

Jai guru de va om

Nothing's gonna change my world

Nothing's gonna change my world

Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes

They call me on and on across the universe

Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box

They tumble blindly as they make their way

Across the universe

Jai guru de va om

Nothing's gonna change my world

Nothing's gonna change my world

Sounds of laughter shades of life are ringing through my open ears

Inciting and inviting me

Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns

it calls me on and on

Across the universe

Jai guru de va om

Nothing's gonna change my world

Nothing's gonna change my world

[Peri]

Oh, my, my, my. What a tempest this thread begat!

Matus1976, I don't have much to add that Kat, Victor, Jonothan, MSK and my darling Michael haven't already said, and better, except to reiterate that your applauding John Lennon's tragic, senseless and unfortunate death was absolutely chilling. I'm sure there were people Lennon's life who cared about him and felt grief at his loss on a deeply personal level: I just read an interview with young Sean Lennon in which he expressed the sense of loss he feels to this day.

I don't care if you can't stand the Beatles, John Lennon, Yoko Ono or anything they may stand for in your mind, but to applaud Lennon's murder is just unfathomnable to me.

I will not address your other points on this thread since this really isn't the place for them.

I know that the soundtrack to my life would have been much poorer and my life less bright without Lennon's music.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Peri

[Matus1976]

MSK, thanks for your comments. I agree with you on our justified intolerance of administrations lying to people, both the Nixon and the Bush administration. But the extent of the lies and cover-ups of the Nixon administration hardly justified the brutal abandonment of Indochina, even though it was Kennedy and Johnson that brought us into that war and Nixon that ended the draft and the war and won it.

As I said, I admit it is extremely difficult to determine the influence that a public figure like Lennon had on the populace, but given, as example, the adulation and respect still given to him this day, and in this forum, even when he openly supported one of the most brutal regimes to walk on the face of this planet, it’s clear his influence was strong and long lasting. If he had been singing about Nazism in world war II, would members of this forum think so highly of him still? Why the evasion, Communism has killed 10 times as many people as Nazism did. It is no laughing matter. To look at a idealistic communist and think ‘well, he just meant well he didn’t harm anyone’ when he was a major public figure in the forefront of the protest movement which eventually turned the tide of public opinion of the Vietnam war and sentenced millions of people to slavery and death is completely intellectually dishonest.

Maybe Lennon didn’t have much of an influence, but one must still hold him morally accountable for the despicable things he preached. And we need to remember that we are all to willing to believe the things we want to believe in order to think the things we want to think. Lennon had little influence so I get to still like him because of his music. What I see here is people trying to convince themselves that even though he advocated, essentially, brutal enslavement and mass murder, that well he didn’t really have any major effect so they get to still like him because he made good music. Sorry, politics trumps good music especially when the musician uses the popularity he gained from being a good musician to make himself a political figure

You quoted Lennon as saying

“We're trying to sell peace, like a product, you know, and sell it like people sell soap or soft drinks. And it's the only way to get people aware that peace is possible, and it isn't just inevitable to have violence. Not just war — all forms of violence. People just accept it and think 'Oh, they did it, or Harold Wilson [british prime minister at the time] did it, or Nixon did it,'”

Peace must not be removed from the context that surrounds it. Should we value peace over all else when a murder comes to our home? When our wife is getting raped? The ‘Peace’ movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s was not a movement of peace, but one of absolute pacifism, and absolute pacifism does nothing but reward militant aggression. If a warlike society was bent on taking over the world, the peace movement of that era would have paved the way with their bodies. Lennon’s cries for peace during the Vietnam war were essentially cries to abandon the Vietnamese people to mass murder and enslavement, as all the politicians supporting the war warned countless times and as came to pass, just like every other time communism has come to power in a nation. Lennon’s cries for peace in this era were appeals for the people of South Vietnam to stop fighting the people and system that sought to enslave them. They did not value his ‘peace’ more than their freedom.

The Vietnam war was not a war of expansionism or for tin or rubber, it was a war of the US and the Soviet Union fought in Vietnam. The people of Vietnam were the worst victims in all of it, and the efforts of the United states, though often flawed and even sometime flagrantly immoral, were to secure the people of South Vietnam from invasion by the soviet backed north. It was a war in defense of self determination and freedom.

--------

Mick Said:

“he wrote some beautiful songs. That's what matters to me.”

Well I am sure Hitler wrote some nice poetry and Stalin had some decent sketches he made for his grand children. I am not so willing as you are to forgive someone for their flagrant support of brutally murderous regimes. In case you haven’t checked recently, every single ideal of libertarianism would have gotten you immediately purged, smashed, hung, executed, imprisoned, and or disappeared in ever single communist nation. Lennon publicly opposed fighting one of the most brutal regimes of this kind to have ever existed at the very least, and worst actually helped bring one to power. But hey, who cares, he made good music! I am sure that is wonderful consolation to the 4.5 million people murdered.

“insensitive comment regarding Lennon's death. Whatever his politics, he certainly wasn't guilty of a capital offense. Show some compassion.”

Where was Lennon’s compassion for the millions of Vietnamese murdered? More than 50,000 Vietnamese peasants had been murdered *in the north* by the North Vietnamese communists before the Vietnam war (that is, the involvement of the US) even started. Where was his compassion for them? For their plight? For their desire for freedom? For the desire of the freedom of the people of South Vietnam? For the 500,000 boat people that died at sea, seeking their freedom. For the 3.5 million people smashed and starved to death by Pol Pot in Cambodia, who was brought to power by the North Vietnamese communists. Don’t talk to me about compassion. Oh, but he made good music! That’s all I care about!

Victor said:

“it is Insensitive indeed—revolting. A great artist like John Lennon was gunned down at the age of 40 by a lunatic and this person makes light of it--applauds it. That's appalling. John Lennon suffered a horrible death and he didn’t deserve such a fate.”

Oh, and did the 4.5 million people who died in Indochina as a result of the US abandonment deserve their fates? Well, peace now reigns, even though North Vietnam is still one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, at least they have peace! John Lennon’s callous disregard for the lives of the people of Vietnam is what is disgusting and insensitive. No one deserves a horrible death, but John Lennon, at the very least, opposed fighting a regime which wrought more horrible deaths on the world than had been seen in 50 years, and at worst helped them come to power. That you disregard all of this, that you couldn’t care less that all of these millions of people died, each of whom I am sure loved their lives as much as Lennon did his, is *amazing* But hey, he made good music right?

Kat,

This is not a commentary about music, I actually really like the Beatles and many of Lennon’s songs. There are many different levels one can enjoy music on, but I also weigh the philosophical message of a song in that assessment very strongly. I used to be a huge Zeppelin fan, but as I got older I came to dislike the pure lack of any kind of commentary or message in the lyrics. The few Zeppelin songs I still absolutely love are the ones with incredible music and superb lyrical content / philosophical message. Stairway to heaven is an incredible song, but the lyrics are just dumb and make no sense. John Lennon’s music is the same, I really like Imagine as a piece of music, it is a well constructed and very enjoyable song, but I *really* dislike it for the philosophical message of the song.

You have read many of my posts and comments on RoR and SoloHQ, do you really find me to be a cruel person? I feel very strongly about the tragedy that the people of Vietnam have suffered, and as such I dislike people who helped to bring that tragedy about. Lennon’s very public opposition to the Vietnam war was cruel and inappropriate, and it was based on horrible philosophical premises additionally, and I hold him accountable for his actions, no matter how good the music he made ways it can not outweigh a complacency to mass murder.

Peri said:

“applauding John Lennon's tragic, senseless and unfortunate death was absolutely chilling”

Why? He was a communist who sought to turn the world into a communist utopia. Do you value your life? He sought to own it, or at least confiscate it and grant it as property to the state. Do you own property and value the means to interact with a material world to sustain your life? He sought to take that away, and have the state give you permission to live. His music, his most famous song now, still works to spread that message. Again I say, look at the actually lyrics of Imagine, or think of them, I am sure most people have them memorized now. And again I saw, what of the 4.5 million people who died in Indochina *AFTER* the end of the Vietnam War. What of the plight of the 2.5 million refugees and boat people, many of whom were apprehended and forcibly returned to Vietnam (one need not wonder too deeply what became of them) Was Lennon rallying for their cause? Did he, like sadly few other prominent Vietnam war protestors, latter change his mind and try to rally humanitarian support for Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? Did he care to follow, as the years dragged on, what actually happen to Vietnam? Or did he, like most people, just bury his head in the sand, convince himself nothing bad would happen, and give himself a big ol pat on his back for his moral fortitude!

Oh, but hey, he made good music!

I invite anyone interested to read this excellent commentary from a lifelong democrat coming to terms with her opposition to the Vietnam war and the suffering of the people of South Vietnam it caused.

http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/04/min...-to-change.html

[Victor Pross]

Just Gimme Some Truth

by John Lennon [from the Imagine album]

I’m sick and tired of hearing things

From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

I’ve had enough of reading things

By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky

Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me

With just a pocketful of hope

Money for dope

Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky

Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me

With just a pocketful of soap

Money for dope

Money for rope

I’m sick to death of seeing things

From tight-lipped, condescending, mama’s little chauvinists

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of watching scenes

Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky

Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me

With just a pocketful of soap

It’s money for dope

Money for rope

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things

From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of reading things

By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

[Michael Russell]

Matus,

John Lennon was not a communist or a fascist. To compare him with Stalin and Hitler on the basis of his song “Imagine” is absurd. The only electoral politics that Lennon was involved in that I know of was his work for George McGovern, who was a fighter pilot against the fascists in World War II.

Mick

[Matus1976]

Matus,

John Lennon was not a communist or a fascist. To compare him with Stalin and Hitler on the basis of his song “Imagine” is absurd. The only electoral politics that Lennon was involved in that I know of was his work for George McGovern, who was a fighter pilot against the fascists in World War II.

Mick

Mick, I am not comparing him directly to Hitler or to Stalin. I am making the point that one should not disconnect someone artistic or musical contributions from their political or intellectual contributions. Both are fundamental reflections of the nature of their charachter. I see a lot of people on this forum saying "I dont care what he did, I care that I like his music" I am saying "I dont care that his music was good, I care what he did"

[Victor Pross]

Matus,

Why even mention Hitler and Lennon in the same post or same breath for that matter--unless you wanted to plant a “philosophical association” in a most some subtle way--one that you could not be called on so easily? I'm tired of these little intellectual games--and I can spot them a mile a way. Anybody who needs to use Hitler in their arguments—lost the argument, in my books. It’s so cheap.

More over, what John Lennon "did" was create music--this is not some trivial contribution to the world. His political influence is next to zero. Do not make light of his music, the world IS a better place for it. Now put away your magnified glass--in the examination of the mole with the protruding hair--and look at the rest of the person.

Victor

[Matus1976]

Matus,

Why even mention Hitler and Lennon in the same post or same breath for that matter--unless you wanted to plant a “philosophical association” in a most some subtle way--one that you could not be called on so easily? I'm tired of these little intellectual games--and I can spot them a mile a way. Anybody who needs to use Hitler in their arguments—lost the argument, in my books. It’s so cheap.

More over, what John Lennon "did" was create music--this is not some trivial contribution to the world. His political influence is next to zero. Do not make light of his music, the world IS a better place for it. Now put away your magnified glass--in the examination of the mole with the protruding hair--and look at the rest of the person.

Victor

Victor, as I said, I was making a point. It doesnt matter how good or nice someone is in other aspects if his actions result in a terrible amount of pain and suffering. As I said, people on this forum, including you, will glaze right on past Lennon's complacency in bringing a murderous regime into power, and look only at his music. Did his music do more good for the world than his opposition of stopping a murderous regime from rising to power do harm? I don't know, I'd ask the 4.5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, but they are all dead now. And I though we established how extremely difficult it was to accurately assess how much real influence Lennon had in the anti-war movement and in eventually getting the US to abandon the people of Vietnam. Note that had Lennon made any of his music in the nations he opposed defending, he would have been imprisoned and executed.

What Lennon did was use the popularity he acquired through making good music to oppose the defense of people who desired to be free and determine the course of their own lives and to ultimately contribute, to an extent which is of course debateable, to their enslavement and murder.

Sorry, but you can either come to terms with the fact that a musician you like helped a murderous tyranny come into power or you can continually evade the question or simply convince yourself that he had absolutely NO political influence, which hardly seems reasonable at all.

How do you KNOW what his political influence was? How do you KNOW it was next to zero, do you just FEEL IT? Do you think that all of those millions of people who loved the Beatles and liked John Lennon, every one of them, completely and utterly ignored his political commentaries and actions?

From Wikipedia on John Lennon

"“Give Peace a Chance,” recorded in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War, marked Lennon’s transformation from loveable mop-top to anti-war activist, and began a process that culminated in 1972 when the Nixon Administration sought to silence him by ordering him deported from the US.

The Vietnam War mobilized a generation of young people to take a stand opposing US government policy, but few pop stars joined them – antiwar protest was something for folkies like Joan Baez and Bob Dylan. Lennon however was determined to use his power as a superstar to help end the war, especially after he left the Beatles and teamed up with Yoko Ono. They declared their honeymoon at the Amsterdam Hilton in March 1969 a "bed-in for peace," winning world-wide media coverage. At a second bed-in in Montreal in June, 1969, they recorded “Give Peace a Chance” in their hotel room; the song quickly became the anthem of the anti-war movement, and was sung by half a million demonstrators in Washington DC at Vietnam Moratorium Day in November 1969"

Note the highlighted section. Yet you assert, with hardly any evidence to back it up, that John Lennon had NEXT TO ZERO influence in the ending of the Vietnam War?

Remember, too, what "peace" is in this context, it is a wanton surrender of a people that yearn to be free to a murderous stalinistic soviet communism.

Wikipedia continues

"When John and Yoko moved to New York City in August 1971, they became friends with antiwar leaders Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and others, and planned a national concert tour to coincide with the 1972 presidential election."

They were close friends with promiment leaders of the Anti-war movement? yet he had "next to zero" influence? It goes on, but you get the point.

It is interesting that your admiration for Lennon relies on the fact that he had next to zero influence on the eventually abandonment of Indochina to communist aggression. Does that mean that if it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt he did have a influence, perhaps even a significant one (he certainly put a hell of a lot of effort into trying to be a significant influence) that you would reconsider your assessment of him as a person? Or perhaps reconsider his net contribution to the world?

Matus

[Kat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_aaDZZFBLs

Unfortunately, the computer ate my post. Anyway, John was a pacifist, not a genocidal monster and certainly wasn't responsible for any of the killing that occured in Vietnam so take a chill pill, man, and enjoy the music from the 1979 Concert for the People of Kampuchea.

Peace,

Kat

[Johnny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_aaDZZFBLs

Unfortunately, the computer ate my post. Anyway, John was a pacifist, not a genocidal monster and certainly wasn't responsible for any of the killing that occured in Vietnam so take a chill pill, man, and enjoy the music from the 1979 Concert for the People of Kampuchea.

Peace,

Kat

Matus your posts are very well said and excellent. It's amazing that people that call themselves Objectivists are so willing to give Lennon a free pass because he wrote some catchy tunes.

Kat, what's the difference? He was a pacifist you say as if to say this absolves him intellectually of his beliefs? What does pacifism do? Have you not read any of Rand's writings on the evil of Pacifism? That it rewards aggresive behavior and if anything, simply enables genocidal monsters to exist? Rand often said in her writings she didn't know what was worse, the genocidal maniacs that kill so many people or the appeasers and Pacifists that allow such evil to exist? How insulting to say "take a chill pill". Hey sorry if people get excited about mass murder. I'm sure we can just tell the victims of communism hey, just take a "chill pill". How absurd.

There's also very little distinction between a person's choice to act and whether that act was successful or not in it's intentions. Was Lennon effective in turning people's opinion about Indochina? Does it matter? Why do we hold attempted murderers responsible? If you shot a gun at me and the gun jammed, are you absolved of all moral culpability because I wasn't harmed? No! It doesn't matter. We judge people by their choice to act, not on the consequential success of that action.

Should we hold John Lennon responsible the same as Pol Pot? No we should not. But Lennon doesn't get off scot free. Did Karl Marx create the Soviet gulags and Cambodian killing fields? No he did not. But he's still culpable for creating such an anti-life and disgusting idealogy of communism. to which the Soviet gulags and Cambodian killing fields were it's logical conclusion.

John Lennon was a very vocal, and active political figure for Pacifism. An anti-life and disgusting idealogy, to which it's logical conclusion was the abandonment of millions to communist slavery and death.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Victor Pross]

Um...yeah. There were people who wished John Lennon dead for his 1966 statement claiming that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus—a remark many thought worthy of a death hit. I think you have been playing those Beatle vinyl records backwards with a voice that said “John Lennon is evil. John Lennon is evil.”

Edited October 19, 2006 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Matus,

You have something important to say and you are blowing it.

You need to talk about Vietnam and you are talking about John Lennon, for God's sake. You are blowing it, man. Vietnam was important and what you say about it is important.

Victor called you a troglodyte and you called most of the posters on OL "completely intellectually dishonest." None of that ain't going nowhere, so I suggest we abandon this kind of rhetoric. Who do you both expect to convince like that (except the administration)? (Please look at our posting guidelines in the Corner Office.)

Also you started your discourse wishing Lennon had died sooner. What a horrible choice of rhetoric. Once again, who do you expect to convince? One could say that of other posters, for example you or me. Wouldn't it be better for the other side of a discussion if you or me died sooner so we would not argue the points we argue?

I'm with you, Matus, on Vietnam. But no amount of rhetoric will ever convince me that Lennon wanted to kill millions of people or was a main force in doing so. This is the kind of argument I see often in Objectivism that makes sure it stays marginal and never goes mainstream. (Rand's fiction is mainstream, though, thank goodness.)

I once produced a very famous protest singer in Brazil (Geraldo Vandré). I learned a lot and I assure you that within the grand scheme of things, any system that works on checks and balances needs these singers - if not, government officials let power go to their heads. Nixon sure as hell did.

If I took your premise seriously, I could extend your argument to include Ayn Rand being guilty for the 4.5 million dead also. She said we should not have entered the war at all and after Goldwater lost, she pulled Objectivists from political activism. (See Ron Merrill's account of this here.) So intellectuals who actually could have convinced policy walked away. (Rand's people did help abolish the draft, though, and that is a fascinating story.)

So let's put the blame where it is supposed to go. Who killed those 4.5 million people were thugs. Despicable thugs. The US Government did a dumb-ass thing by walking away from them at the wrong time and it was Richard Nixon who gave that order, not John Lennon. Richard Nixon certainly didn't listen to John Lennon, or do I misunderstand history? He didn't listen to the American people, either. Remember the "Silent Majority thing? Nixon was simply all over the damn place. And like all people in power who are completely inconsistent, he did some horribly bad things and some wonderfully good things and a whole lot of mediocre things.

Note to John Armaos - I just saw your post as I was writing this one. Let me welcome you to OL. I have seen your posts elsewhere and you generally argue the "conservative" side well. I welcome this, although we will probably disagree on several issues. Depending on how we do it, we could both learn something from each other.

My comments to Michael (Matus) are basically a response to your post as well. The important issue is Vietnam and USA foreign policy, not Lennon. Not many people know many facts about that war other than what is in the movies. I suggest a discussion on a new thread to put it out there with the principles behind them. I know I am interested.

Let people enjoy their Beatle in peace. Besides, I happen to like John Lennon.

I never did pay any attention to Lennon's politics, but I sure resonate deeply with his irreverence for authority. I HATE dictators. And I think if Lennon had lived in North Vietnam or any communist country, he would have been shot for that irreverence eventually. I know I almost was, but that's another story.

Michael

[Johnny]

My comments of wishing Lennon to have died earlier in his life may seem extreme and I admit I said them for dramatic effect. And I certainly would not advocate murdering Pacifists as Victor seems to imply I'm advocating. I don't think Lennon's actions warranted his death by Mark Chapman nor any kind of violence on Lennon was warranted. John Lennon's actions were stupid, and the right to free speech does not preclude the right to say and do stupid things. But saying something stupid, and morally repulsive, still warrants moral condemnation. We don't lock people up for denying the holocaust or execute them but they are ridiculed and marginalized for thinking that in today's society and rightfully so. But apparently as long as it's condemning the Vietnam war by a Leftist musician, no ridicule or marginalization is warranted.

I'm curious why Lennon's intellectual arguments do not get the same treatment of marginalization and ridicule? Why does Lennon get a free pass? I can't think of any reason other than because he wrote some catchy tunes and he meant well. But good intentions do not excuse bad actions. Lennon instead of being ridiculed for his absurd notions of Pacifism, gained widespread acceptance. "Hey man he was only advocating peace" one may say. No he wasn't. He was advocating the enslavement of millions. Complete surrender to evil as one's definition of attaining Peace is EVIL. Unless you're willing to come to grips with that reality you are living in a world of delusion and denial. It's time people tear down the icons they onces worshiped and take a good hard look at what these iconic celebrities actually stood for. And I take back the comment I wished he died earlier. I wish instead he was ignored as he should have been.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Barbara Branden]

Let's drop the John Lennon fight for just a moment, and consider the issue involved from a different perspective, one that might involve less acrimony. Consider the case of Richard Wagner. In my view, Wagner was one of the greatest composers of all time -- and he was in many ways a despicable man, including being a rabid and vocal anti-Semite. Thus one may love his music, and whatever in him created such sublime music, but loathe other aspects of the man.

My point is that I hear in the arguments about Lennon the idea that people are all-of-a-piece -- that each of us is either a good person or a bad one and that, therefore, either one loves Lennon, politics and all, because of his music, and defends him against all critics -- or one hates him, music and all, because of his politics, and denounces him against all admirers. But surely one can condemn Lennon strongly -- as I certainly do -- for his irrationality about politics, but still love his music and whatever better part of him created it. I think the posters on this thread will be less eager to tear each others heads off if they keep this distinction in mind.

Barbara