Overall was John politically good or bad? | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

GniknuS said
Hey guys, long time no see. I think I used to give long, babbling arguments about the importance of John and what he represented, so this thread caught my eye. In my life, John represents a false idol. Kedame said that he was politically naïve but I’d say he was just immature. Just look on YouTube for the clips of him callously arguing with reporters while having no fundamental base of an argument. The only thing he knew about or cared about was himself, and Yoko, lol, but the two of them are just glorified stoners. Pledging for peace and the end of violence/war/poverty while still getting room service delivered at the “monumental” bed in?

John represents someone with ideas that were above and beyond his range or scope as a human being. The claim that he thought he was Jesus for a while, which I totally believe by the way, makes me sick. He wrote some nice songs and did more than just about anyone musically, but in terms of an icon to look up to, he should not be followed. His self involvement should not be emulated. I don’t believe in the myth of John Lennon anymore, I just believe in Jesus. If more people were influenced by Jesus’ words rather than silly musicians, we’d be better off.

I say if Jesus works for you, go with that.  John was more popular than Jesus, but it’s not a contest.

DrBeatle said

meanmistermustard said
I’d have to find the quote to see what exactly he said.

I’ve never seen the problem with John having money and singing against capitalism. What do you want him to do? Give all his money away and become dirt poor and a beggar on the streets relying on his musician mates before speaking out? Wait he cant do that because he’s using rich friends who have benefiitted from the system. Its like those who bitch about the words of Imagine . Im not a massive fan of the song but the stupidity i find in that opinion is incredible.

I wouldn’t expect him or other rich celebrities and politicians who are rich to give all their possessions away. My big beef with the message in Imagine and, closer to home, the phony celebrities and politicians we have here in the US (and elsewhere) is when they preach that we “peons” should give it all away and do with less, etc while they have no intention of doing so. My thing is, if they’re not going to do it themselves but expect us “regular” people to do so, then shut up. Otherwise, they should go on and do it before expecting anyone else to do so.

That’s really my issue with Imagine and things of that ilk…John and Yoko had *ZERO* intention of doing what the song said, yet they expected everyone else to do so. Sorry, no thanks. I’d rather be rich myself, and if they TRULY believed in it, then they can go ahead and set the example by doing it first. The fact that they never did doesn’t bother me in and of itself because, like I said, I wouldn’t expect them to. The fact that at the same time they (and others) are preaching that everyone else should is what frosts me.

I used to love the political side of John many years ago. Then I grew up.

 

I’m reading John and Yoko in their own words right now, and they believed that if we put “commercials” out there for things, by visualizing them and getting the thoughts and images in the mainstream, it would create those very things.  It’s a “new age” kind of idea that I’m very familiar with: creative visualization.  If you’ll notice, John doesn’t sing “Go give all your possessions away.”  He asks us to “imagine” a world without them, which is the first step to having that world.  In the same way, Yoko sang “Hard Times Are Over (For A While),” not “Hard Times Are Over Forever,” and they sang “Give Peace A Chance ,” not “everyone must have peace right now.”  In their own minds they were planting seeds that they and others could grow.  The seeds were not fully realized yet.

Yoko also believed that there is more energy behind a visualization when two or more people are visualizing the same thing together.  I believe she still thinks this way today.  She is always trying to get people to visualize peace together.

As far as “Preaching that we shouldn’t have possessions” and then having them, you can look at it this way.  John and Yoko were interested in changing the whole structure, the whole system.  They weren’t just telling “peons” to give things away.  I personally enjoy having nice things, but I also think a better, more fair system would be something like Libertarian Socialism (Anarchy) where there is no centralized government, no concept of possessions (there would still be “things”) and commodities are exchanged through bartering for services.

Do I think this kind of society could happen right now?  Should I go out and stop paying taxes and taking care of my family to try and implement it?  No.  That kind of thinking is idiocy.  We have ideals, but we know that the world has not caught up to our ideals yet.

The military industrial complex and the news media with its propaganda are always feeding us fear in order to control us.  We are run by “suits” and corporations whose purpose is to create war.  John and Yoko were merely trying to get another message across.

The fact that they happened to be artists who sold a product should not be held over their heads as the only or the most important element of their being.

Anyone who thinks John gave up his youthful radicalism should read “The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko Ono,” which is 200 pages of conversations with J & L three months before his death.

PS..Another thing that gets me is how people pit the rich against the poor in their minds, somehow thinking that once you are rich, you have it made.  If you look at John Lennon ‘s life, he supposedly had everything, but what he wanted was true love and a happy home life and to be normal like everyone else.  And in his life, someone still had to care for the baby, and someone still had to go out and do business and deal with assholes.  Being rich doesn’t change anything.

What changes us is daring to do things such as visualizing a better world.

Funny Paper said
Overall, John’s politics were bad; as all Utopianists are — even if they call themselves “Nutopianists” (he should have just stuck with being a pianist…).

Good intentions.  Paved roads.  Hell.  And all that rot…

 

Disagree.