Working class hero? John Lennon 'was closet conservative and fan of Reagan'

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Working class hero? John Lennon 'was closet conservative and fan of Reagan'
By David Gardner for MailOnline
UPDATED: 06:23 EST, 30 June 2011


Altered image: Fred Seaman, John Lennon's former personal assistant says his private personality was rather different to his public persona

He is still revered around the world as a peace-loving working class hero.

But by the time he died, John Lennon was a closet conservative embarrassed by his radical past, according to his former personal assistant.

Fred Seaman claims that the former Beatle was a fan of Ronald Reagan, who went on to become America’s Republican president in 1981 and forged a close political alliance with Margaret Thatcher.

‘John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on [Democrat] Jimmy Carter,’ he says in a documentary film.

Seaman worked for Lennon during the year leading up to the star’s death in December 1980 aged 40.

He tells Beatles Stories filmmaker Seth Swirsky that in his final months Lennon was not the left-wing militant worshipped by many of his fans.

‘He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine,’ he says.

'by 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete.


Last day: John Lennon signing an autograph on an album cover for his killer Mark Chapman on December 8 1980 the day he was shot dead

‘He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event.

'Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young [peace] demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that.

‘He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.’


Honeymoon: John Lennon and Yoko Ono Bed-In for Peace in 1969, Amsterdam, Netherlands

He adds: ‘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.’

Lennon’s anti-war songs had not endeared him to Richard Nixon’s previous Republican administration and the FBI kept him under surveillance in 1971 after he met peace activists in New York.


Family confidante: Fred Seaman with John Lennon's first wife Cynthia

The U.S. immigration service tried unsuccessfully to deport him a year later.

Lennon’s radicalism and support of left-wing causes were well-known. He and wife Yoko staged ‘Bed-Ins for Peace’ after getting married in 1969.

He wrote the anti-Vietnam war anthem Give Peace a Chance, sided with Glaswegian shipyard workers and backed the IRA.

Another political song that became famous was Working Class Hero.


Driving force: Paul McCartney provided the backbone to the Beatles, according to assistant Tony Bramwell



Seaman, 58, was forced to apologise in court to Lennon’s widow in 2002 after he was accused of stealing hundreds of the star’s personal photographs and letters.

In the documentary, the group’s long-time assistant, Tony Bramwell, says he is convinced the Beatles would not have recorded so many classics in their later years had it not been for Paul McCartney because Lennon was often too lazy to make it into the studio. McCartney drove the band on to make new recordings.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009562/John-Lennon-closet-conservative-fan-Reagan.html#ixzz540wCLsdS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
I think honestly this was a blatantly obvious side of John Lennon. But I post this because it helps confirms what I think is already obvious (and disappointing) about John Lennon.

That being said...... I really like "Strawberry Fields Forever". That is one of my favorite songs.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
'Hollywood' people are incredibly ambitious, by nature-- and competitive-- they have to be. Idk how anyone can look at the sheer amount of merchandise these people put out (or endorse and make a profit), and think that they were otherwise.
 

Sunshine

Established
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
252
The article quotes the assistant as saying Lennon "had soured on Carter" as president. My question is, Who hadn't soured on Carter by then? The man fired his entire cabinet (twice!) and did nothing in the face of multiple oil crises, a stagnated economy and growing threats against America by terrorist groups. My first political memory, when I was a kid, was seeing the election results on tv. Reagan beat Carter by a landslide. Everybody was sick of Carter. The man might be a real-life genius, IQ-wise, but apparently that does not guarantee a successful presidency.

The first thing Reagan did when he was sworn in was to send in Special Forces to free the US Embassy in Tehran (Iran) from militant Muslim terrorists. I my have been just a kid, but even I could tell it was a BFD, people were so happy and relieved.

So don't pretend that John Lennon's personal and political evolution somehow reveals him to be a "bad guy in good guy's clothing." He, like all of us, was a product of his times, and was just frustrated with the failure of the ideals of his youth to come to fruition, as are we all. He was an important voice in the social revolutions of the 60's/70's, sure. But "bed peace" and the like only had a limited impact, mostly on the youth already involved in the hippie movement. It as seen more or less as a joke to anyone with enough political clout to institute policy changes. I think that is why he might have been "embarrassed" by it, maybe seen it as a less effective use of his celebrity than he had originally envisioned.

Just think what he would have accomplished if he'd been given more time on this Earth. Once he'd regrouped and came up with a new set of strategies for changing the world for the better, he could have been unstoppable. Which, of course, is why they killed him.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
The article quotes the assistant as saying Lennon "had soured on Carter" as president. My question is, Who hadn't soured on Carter by then? The man fired his entire cabinet (twice!) and did nothing in the face of multiple oil crises, a stagnated economy and growing threats against America by terrorist groups. My first political memory, when I was a kid, was seeing the election results on tv. Reagan beat Carter by a landslide. Everybody was sick of Carter. The man might be a real-life genius, IQ-wise, but apparently that does not guarantee a successful presidency.

The first thing Reagan did when he was sworn in was to send in Special Forces to free the US Embassy in Tehran (Iran) from militant Muslim terrorists. I my have been just a kid, but even I could tell it was a BFD, people were so happy and relieved.

Also I had a friend who saw her friends get murdered

So don't pretend that John Lennon's personal and political evolution somehow reveals him to be a "bad guy in good guy's clothing." He, like all of us, was a product of his times, and was just frustrated with the failure of the ideals of his youth to come to fruition, as are we all. He was an important voice in the social revolutions of the 60's/70's, sure. But "bed peace" and the like only had a limited impact, mostly on the youth already involved in the hippie movement. It as seen more or less as a joke to anyone with enough political clout to institute policy changes. I think that is why he might have been "embarrassed" by it, maybe seen it as a less effective use of his celebrity than he had originally envisioned.

Just think what he would have accomplished if he'd been given more time on this Earth. Once he'd regrouped and came up with a new set of strategies for changing the world for the better, he could have been unstoppable. Which, of course, is why they killed him.
I don't separate the world into bad guys and good guys. I don't use anything so simplistic as "bad guys," "good guys" or "axis of evil" in this thread. We don't have to turn concepts like socialism and conservative into one-syllable words. You can do that but it's a distorsion of what I actually said and therefore whatever is based on that is a strawman argument.

Also I know someone who saw her friends get murdered by Reagan-funded death squads in El Salvador. I am definitely not a Reagan fan.

If we're against terrorism that's wonderful. That's exactly why I'm against Reagan. He funded a whole lot of terrorism. I mean not only the terrorism he funded in South America and that impacted people I know and interact with personally...... and that also caused a whole lot of immigration to the US. A lot of people came to the US because of terrorism he funded. How can people fund terrorism in other countries and then get mad at them for leaving because they don't want to get killed or tortured? But not even just from that angle......

I mean..... i'll try to look it up.... here it is....



how is that not a terrorist? if I put a turban on his head and give him a beard- will he then become a terrorist? all jokes aside.... I mean.... it would be dishonest if we said he was not a terrorist.... he was clearly a terrorist
 
Last edited:

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
I think he was anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion as well. I'm sure there's certain things he did that did not involve genocide and terrorism.....

but



I think Bush was reasonable to say that. I mean if a terrorist likes petting kittens or something.... I guess that's cool but that person is still a terrorist.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
speaking of God fearing people


here is another murdered priest


here is another murdered priest

 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Just think what he would have accomplished if he'd been given more time on this Earth. Once he'd regrouped and came up with a new set of strategies for changing the world for the better, he could have been unstoppable. Which, of course, is why they killed him.
As far as John Lennon....... I mean maybe they did kill him because he was idealistic or something like that... I don't think he really would have done anything... but you might be on to something as far as why he was killed.... if the closet-conservative stuff is true, he might not really have been very radical but...... but radical by the standards of the elite at that time...
 

Renegade

Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
737
Larry knew both John and Yoko.. (He also opened for the likes of Hendrix,Joplin,The Doors, The Who and lots more..)
 
Top