John Lennon Outgrew Liberalism

[Bronco]

John Lennon Outgrew Liberalism

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death — according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

According to Seaman,
"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."





I"magine if Lennon hadn't been killed by a far left kook. He might be out hunting with Ted Nugent by now."

http://gawker.com/5816829/was-john-lenn ... revolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

Holy crap, he's been dead for 30 years. This is relevant how?

I think Hitler would have outgrown fascism had he been given time.

[Bronco]

--
If you didn't find that relevant is this 40 year old story about raising taxes also not relevant to today.

What the Taxman Wrought. How Confiscatory Taxes Broke up the Beatles.
National Review ^ | 04/15/2011 | George Cassidy

On April 29, 1909 — 102 years almost to the day before the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed its “People’s Budget” – the British chancellor of the exchequer, David Lloyd George, introduced his own “People’s Budget” in Parliament. This budget included something called the “super tax,” designed specifically to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Half a century later, in his famous 1966 song “Taxman,” George Harrison, singing in the guise of a sardonic tax collector, warns listeners that he will keep 19 of every 20 pounds they earn, and concludes his advice with the reminder that “you’re working for no one but me.” “Taxman” was inspired by the fact that during their heyday, the Beatles were subject to the super tax, meaning that their earnings were taxed at marginal rates of up to 95 percent
That’s not a misprint. And if the story ended there — with a song — that would be one thing. But the oppressive British tax regime had real and dire consequences for the Beatles.

In 1967, the Beatles were informed that they would need to invest the large pile of cash they had amassed if they wished to avoid a major haircut from Her Majesty’s tax collectors. In late 1967 and early 1968, the Beatles duly started the ill-starred Apple group of companies — Apple Records, Apple Electronics, Apple Films, Apple Publishing, and the Apple Boutique.

Most of the companies under the Apple umbrella began losing money extravagantly and quickly. The Beatles’ manager, Brian Epstein, had died in August 1967, and they had no idea how to stanch the bleeding. John Lennon, after fearing publicly that he would be broke in another six months, brought in Allen Klein, a divisive figure who affected a gangster’s air of bluntness, to take an axe to the Apple tree. Over McCartney’s objections — he was outvoted 3 to 1 — Klein began to manage the Beatles’ affairs.

Klein was on a collision course with McCartney from day one. Klein’s laser focus on money often slighted artistic goals — witness the doctored Let It Be tapes, released without McCartney’s consent. McCartney, finding the prospect of continuing with Klein unacceptable, ultimately enraged the other Beatles by suing them to dissolve their partnership in 1970.

This story is widely known. But what often gets overlooked is the fact that without the potent tax dilemma, it is doubtful that the Apple group of companies would ever have been founded in the first place. In other words, no super tax, no Apple fiasco. No Apple fiasco, no Allen Klein. No Allen Klein, no lawsuit.

In fact, from beyond the grave, Lloyd George had forced the Beatles to spend more time figuring out how to shelter their wealth than making music. It is hard to believe that they would not have behaved more rationally, and stayed together longer as a working band, under a milder tax policy.

The Beatles were not an isolated case. These same tax pressures eventually drove the Rolling Stones to become expatriates in order to continue working, famously living in the south of France in 1971 while recording their masterpiece, Exile on Main Street. While the Stones survived as a working unit, they bore the pain of literal exiles — for some of them, permanent exiles — from their homeland.

Creative ruin. Litigation. Exile. Lloyd George unintentionally, but quite effectively, all but destroyed London’s status as the musical and artistic hub of the world as the 1960s gave way to the 1970s.

On this tax day, it is worth noting the lessons the Beatles and the Stones offer to today’s architects of tax policy about the possible unintended consequences of their “spending reductions in the tax code.”
They may be laying traps for artists and musicians yet unborn. As the song has it, tomorrow never knows.

— George Cassidy is co-author, with Richard Courtney, of Come Together: The Business Wisdom of The Beatles.

[Cap'n Cat]

I outgrew Conservatism after banging a Reagan chick at UNI for a couple months.

Big deal.

[AZGrizFan]

I outgrew Conservatism after banging a Reagan chick at UNI for a couple months.

Big deal.

Haven't you outgrown just about everything?








Well, except apparently that Ford Fiesta you drive.

[Cap'n Cat]

I outgrew Conservatism after banging a Reagan chick at UNI for a couple months.

Big deal.

Haven't you outgrown just about everything?

[AZGrizFan]

Haven't you outgrown just about everything?

Good for you...looks like that diet is working...

[Cap'n Cat]

I outgrew Conservatism after banging a Reagan chick at UNI for a couple months.

Big deal.

Haven't you outgrown just about everything?

Well, except apparently that Ford Fiesta you drive.

Man, Z, I took the boys to northern Minnesota yesterday for some exploring and fishing and swimming and, damn, that car is too small for us three already!

Two tackle boxes, two coolers (one for bait, one for beer), an inner tube, boogie board, three fishing rods that had to ride up front, chew, phones, DS's, IPods, snacks, three towels......couldn't find a place for my wallet!




Outstanding gas mileage, though.

[BlueHen86]

--
If you didn't find that relevant is this 40 year old story about raising taxes also not relevant to today.

What is your point? Also, aren't the Stones still around?

[JoltinJoe]

Lennon was still a young man when he was cut down. His ideas were always evolving. Here's something he said regarding over-population which would surely ruffle the feathers of some liberals (even though he is 100% correct):

[youtube][/youtube]

Also, in one of his last interviews, he said that he considered himself a "religious man" who believed in God, but not as some old man in the sky. He explained he was brought up Christian and was now only beginning to understand the lessons of the parables. He said he believed there was truth in religion, in what Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammad said, but that perhaps words have been lost through translations sometimes.

It was tragic what happened to him. He really had so many years ahead of him.

[BlueHen86]

Lennon died 30 years ago and the writer only now is figuring out that Lennon outgrew liberalism (allegedly)

And I'm supposed to care why?

[Grizalltheway]

Lennon was still a young man when he was cut down. His ideas were always evolving. Here's something he said regarding over-population which would surely ruffle the feathers of some liberals (even though he is 100% correct):

[youtube][/youtube]

Also, in one of his last interviews, he said that he considered himself a "religious man" who believed in God, but not as some old man in the sky. He explained he was brought up Christian and was now only beginning to understand the lessons of the parables. He said he believed there was truth in religion, in what Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammad said, but that perhaps words have been lost through translations sometimes.

It was tragic what happened to him. He really had so many years ahead of him.

No doubt. He could, and would, have done a lot of good things for the world.

[SeattleGriz]

I outgrew Conservatism after banging a Reagan chick at UNI for a couple months.

Big deal.

Haven't you outgrown just about everything?

Ouch Z, I owe you one on this burn.








Well, except apparently that Ford Fiesta you drive.

[SeattleGriz]

--
If you didn't find that relevant is this 40 year old story about raising taxes also not relevant to today.

What is your point? Also, aren't the Stones still around?

The problem is that it has been perpetuated for years that Lennon was a liberal, when in fact he was conservative.

Only NOW is it problem.

Let me sum it up nicely for you:

Not to sound like a bitter dick, but it looks as if the liberal offense was not ready for the mythical Lennon to switch sides and crush 40.2 million hippies hearts and vinyl collections with one swift blow.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't think you can say Lennon was a conservative. I think it's fair to say that, at 40, Lennon had come to be more moderate in his views, or perhaps in the application of his views. This really isn't news, however, to people who were Lennon fans and alive in 1980. When Lennon re-surfaced in 1980, he said a number of things publicly which contravened his prior public record in some ways, including the startling statement that he considered himself a "religious man" and had come to believe in God -- when he had previously been thought to have been an atheist.

This startling statement was only confirmed when, a day after his death, Yoko Ono publicly asked for prayers for Lennon's soul. This was headline news in New York, with many noting the younger John Lennon didn't believe people had souls.

Lennon was a great man still on a journey when he was cut down. I always found many of his words and songs powerful and thought-provoking. To try to politicize Lennon in terms of today's political debates isn't fair. Lennon in 1980 was more about finding meaning in one's own existence. He wasn't political in his outlook. I remember interviews around that time, when Lennon or Ono were asked an explicitly political question, and they would turn the question in-ward looking.



Anytime I hear this song, I am transported back to my first year in college. I think it's a pretty fair portrait of John Lennon, 1980. It's a shame that he never had the chance to fully experience the genuine optimism for the future evident in this song.

[youtube][/youtube]

[BlueHen86]

What is your point? Also, aren't the Stones still around?

The problem is that it has been perpetuated for years that Lennon was a liberal, when in fact he was conservative.

Only NOW is it problem.

Let me sum it up nicely for you:

Not to sound like a bitter dick, but it looks as if the liberal offense was not ready for the mythical Lennon to switch sides and crush 40.2 million hippies hearts and vinyl collections with one swift blow.

How is it a problem NOW? Does this really matter to anyone? Besides, most critical minds would read the article for what it is: one's man's opinion of another man's views.

[BlueHen86]

I don't think you can say Lennon was a conservative. I think it's fair to say that, at 40, Lennon had come to be more moderate in his views, or perhaps in the application of his views. This really isn't news, however, to people who were Lennon fans and alive in 1980. When Lennon re-surfaced in 1980, he said a number of things publicly which contravened his prior public record in some ways, including the startling statement that he considered himself a "religious man" and had come to believe in God -- when he had previously been thought to have been an atheist.

This startling statement was only confirmed when, a day after his death, Yoko Ono publicly asked for prayers for Lennon's soul. This was headline news in New York, with many noting the younger John Lennon didn't believe people had souls.

Lennon was a great man still on a journey when he was cut down. I always found many of his words and songs powerful and thought-provoking. To try to politicize Lennon in terms of today's political debates isn't fair. Lennon in 1980 was more about finding meaning in one's own existence. He wasn't political in his outlook. I remember interviews around that time, when Lennon or Ono were asked an explicitly political question, and they would turn the question in-ward looking.


Anytime I hear this song, I am transported back to my first year in college. I think it's a pretty fair portrait of John Lennon, 1980. It's a shame that he never had the chance to fully experience the genuine optimism for the future evident in this song.

Great post

[LeadBolt]

It has been said that if you aren't liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart, and if you aren't conservative when you are old, you don't have a brain...

[YoUDeeMan]

How is it a problem NOW? Does this really matter to anyone? Besides, most critical minds would read the article for what it is: one's man's opinion of another man's views.

Don't be so critical.

[BlueHen86]

How is it a problem NOW? Does this really matter to anyone? Besides, most critical minds would read the article for what it is: one's man's opinion of another man's views.

Don't be so critical.

Don't be a lemming.

[YoUDeeMan]

Don't be so critical.

Don't be a lemming.

I'm not following you.

[BlueHen86]

Don't be a lemming.

I'm not following you.

The that you ended your post with speaks volumes.

[JoltinJoe]

"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life." -- John Lennon.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm not following you.

The that you ended your post with speaks volumes.

It did, Mr. Mallet.

[D1B]

I don't think you can say Lennon was a conservative. I think it's fair to say that, at 40, Lennon had come to be more moderate in his views, or perhaps in the application of his views. This really isn't news, however, to people who were Lennon fans and alive in 1980. When Lennon re-surfaced in 1980, he said a number of things publicly which contravened his prior public record in some ways, including the startling statement that he considered himself a "religious man" and had come to believe in God -- when he had previously been thought to have been an atheist.

This startling statement was only confirmed when, a day after his death, Yoko Ono publicly asked for prayers for Lennon's soul. This was headline news in New York, with many noting the younger John Lennon didn't believe people had souls.

Lennon was a great man still on a journey when he was cut down. I always found many of his words and songs powerful and thought-provoking. To try to politicize Lennon in terms of today's political debates isn't fair. Lennon in 1980 was more about finding meaning in one's own existence. He wasn't political in his outlook. I remember interviews around that time, when Lennon or Ono were asked an explicitly political question, and they would turn the question in-ward looking.



Anytime I hear this song, I am transported back to my first year in college. I think it's a pretty fair portrait of John Lennon, 1980. It's a shame that he never had the chance to fully experience the genuine optimism for the future evident in this song.

[youtube][/youtube]

Joe, what "god" did Lennon believe in? Was it the christian god, or was he like most in that he believed in a higher power but aint stupid or arrogant enough to claim he knows exactly what it is?

Jesus died for our sins.