46

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

McCartney didn't want to play the game either, that's why he was replaced with a double.  It's the replacement who was knighted for serving the monarchy, because he is a "monarch" slave. 

The real James Paul McCartney was as much of a rebel as John, that's why they got on so well.  Paul never would have sold out the way his replacement did.  In those last months before he was replaced you can see that he was really angry, he was sick of what he was having to live with.  On the butcher album cover they were all sending a strong message and Paul especially looks so angry in those photos.  Look at the songs they were writing.  Paul was saying "I wanna be a paperback writer" in other words, get me out of this job I'm doing.  John was saying "Help!" and it doesn't get any more direct than that.  They were in deep shit even then, and they couldn't come right out and say what was happening.  They just tried every way possible to get the message across, in the songs, in the album covers.  But no one took them seriously, and a lot of people still don't, because they are too caught up in their fantasies about what the Beatles meant to them.

Considering what they have done with Paul's image and persona, how they have corrupted it, it's natural that anyone would have a negative view of him...it just makes me really ill that people don't understand that the real Paul was NOT like that.  They have made Paul McCartney into a caricature, and it's not right.  As far as I understand it, John and George both died for that, they were basically sacrificed just to keep the lie going.  And the whole point of it from the beginning was control, because they ALL had the potential to influence people in positive ways.  The Beatles were just too charismatic, and the music was so joyful.  People acted like it was the second coming.  They all lined up, people in wheelchairs, blind people, sick people, asking if one of the boys could just put their hands on them, because they believed they could be healed.  No musical group before or since has ever had such an intense impact on people, and it was entirely natural, it was not manufactured in any way...but the powers that be took note of what was happening and decided to go ahead and allow them to become famous, so they could twist it all around for evil purposes.  It's also likely that they had tabs on John long before he even wrote his first song, so maybe they planted the idea in him that he had to be bigger than Jesus or Elvis to be worth something just so he would have the drive to push himself to the top.

47 (edited by ShineOn 2007-02-28 09:32:42)

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Athenais,
      While I do agree with most of what you said the notion that the Beatles emerged naturally unfortunately is doubtful. They were a key cog in the Aquarian conspriacy, brought about to drive teens from parents and facillitate expanded recreational drug use. They absolutely reek of Tavistock manipulation. From their guttersnipe days in Hamburg they get pressure washed and buffed to a new acceptable image to work their way onto the American music scene.Even their much publicized arrival in New York was a staged event ,with the core of the adorning fans being actually a very small group of New York city catholic high school girls being bused over for the photo op. I do consider them to be among the greatest change agents this world has ever known. They were a modern day trojan horse., appealling on the outside with a very dangerous working core on the inside.

" The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it "

Ayn Rand

48

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

ShineOn wrote:

Athenais,
      While I do agree with most of what you said the notion that the Beatles emerged naturally unfortunately is doubtful. They were a key cog in the Aquarian conspriacy, brought about to drive teens from parents and facillitate expanded recreational drug use. They absolutely reek of Tavistock manipulation. From their guttersnipe days in Hamburg they get pressure washed and buffed to a new acceptable image to work their way onto the American music scene.Even their much publicized arrival in New York was a staged event ,with the core of the adorning fans being actually a very small group of New York city catholic high school girls being bused over for the photo op. I do consider them to be among the greatest change agents this world has ever known. They were a modern day trojan horse., appealling on the outside with a very dangerous working core on the inside.

Their talent and appeal was natural.  I believe it was their soul purpose to bring light to the world through music.  They were born for that purpose.  Even the Tavistock think tanks can't manufacture musical genius out of nowhere.  They look for people who already have it, and manipulate it to their own purposes.  The Beatles were targeted from the beginning by intelligence forces who wanted to use them as tools for cultural change.  I don't understand why you think you are disagreeing with me on this. 

Some people have gone so far as to say that John and Paul's songwriting was induced by hypnosis or electronic manipulation.  I could agree that it was influenced, but certainly not created by external manipulation.  I also don't think that the reaction people had to them was manufactured in the slightest.  It was harnessed and amplified by staged events, yes.

Some of Faul's first interviews after taking over Paul's identity were to announce to the press that he had taken LSD.  The agenda there is pretty obvious...

49 (edited by Ayahuasca 2007-02-28 11:48:48)

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Athenais wrote:

McCartney didn't want to play the game either, that's why he was replaced with a double.

I think that's one conspiracy too far for me. I'm not convinced Paul was replaced at all. I've read most of the websites about this, seen the photographs, and studied the supposed 'clues', so I'm quite familiar with this conspiracy theory. However, I still don't buy it.

I just don't think it would have been a risk worth taking for TPTB and I can't see what good purpose would have been served by it. He was only a popstar at the end of the day. Given that hundreds of people must have known Paul, this could so easily have been exposed, and I just don't buy that someone could suddenly pretend to be one of the most famous people in the world, and pull it off - no matter how close the physical resemblance might have been. There's a heck of a lot more to accurately impersonating a person than just looking like them.

Join me in Peru to celebrate December 21st 2012 - Visit: http://2012awakeningretreat.com/

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Athenais,
    Perhaps our differences of opinion lie in the degree in which Tavistock controlled them. Truth beknown there may have been at least a handful of other bands in ramp up mode during 1956-60. I would also contend that the Beatles were well aware of the would be successors who could be readily brought in if they balked or failed in their mission. I may well be throwing the baby out with the bath water here , but the overall magnitude of this ruse forces me to attribute 99% of their success to social engineering. At 14 when they broke up I was emotionally wrecked. I did believe that they were going to change the world and bought into it all. I see them for what they really were now, four talented guys {hordes of those} , seasoned in the bars, broke, addicted to various opiates and thus easy pickins for the selling off of their artistic integrity.

" The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it "

Ayn Rand

51 (edited by lyra 2007-07-24 13:22:29)

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Well, finally saw this movie since it just came out on DVD.  It was interesting, worth renting for anybody who's a fan of John Lennon.   It's pretty much exactly an hour and a half, and I think they maybe could have done a little bit more with it, such as expanding on the assassination itself.  They play it safe though.  Several years ago I saw an interview clip of Sean Lennon blatantly stating that he believed the CIA was behind his dad's assassination, specifically because his dad had so much power and sway over the public and they couldn't have that.  It's too much of a threat.  So something like that would have been nice to include at the end, a little bit more expansion on the assassination conspiracy instead of just promoting the lie that it was a deranged everyday regular dude acting on his own accord.  For an hour and a half they show you just how much Lennon was on the government's radar, and I guess they hope the viewer will make the connection for themselves. 

There's no doubt though that Lennon had incredible charisma and smarts, a very quick, clever guy as evidenced in the interview clips throughout.  One big thing that I came away with after watching this movie was the whole Vietnam war protest movement, of which John Lennon was a major player in.  But there have been war protests throughout the Iraq debacle, including marches on Washington, and a couple of big name activists, such as Cindy Sheehan, some Hollywood celebs and the whole "Not in My Name" petition, but it still seems like nothing compared to what they did back in Vietnam, where they had people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and actual songs, and protests on a constant basis.  I think people have just given up at this point.  I know I feel like I have, like, what's the point, the stuff running the show here has gotten so huge, so out of control that there's no stopping it.  They flagrantly stole the elections and have been in office for almost 8 years with no chance of impeachment, otherwise it would have already happened, and they've wreaked havoc on the world and killed countless people.  But I was watching this documentary wishing we had that same fighting spirit as they had back then.  The whole time period was an explosion though, because they also had the civil rights movement mixed in, with Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers (Bobby Seale is interviewed for this movie as well) etc.  Just a huge explosive time period from all angles.  Right now there's nothing going on, it's just Iraq happening in the background as the public goes about its life on autopilot.  So that's probably a big reason for the lack of fiery protest on a constant basis.

Anyway, just my thoughts after watching this movie last night....

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

52 (edited by lyra 2007-07-24 19:33:52)

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Was looking for material on John Lennon in the Rense archives and found this new article written by David Icke on 7/16 that was really interesting.  Thought it was worth posting.  At first I was going to start a new thread for it since it gets into the global warming hoax and the rock stars who are being used to promote the agenda, but since it also talks about John Lennon, I figured it could just go here. 

David Icke from 7/16/07 Newsletter wrote:

Icke Blasts Rock Hypocrisy,
Warming Hoax
David Icke Newsletter
7-16-7

ROCK STARS LAUNCH THE 'LIVE CONCERT' CONCERT ...

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/liveconcert.JPG


Hello all ...

Do you remember the days when 'rock stars' were supposed to be rebellious? When they gave the symbolic finger to all that the establishment stood for?

It seems to me, with the odd exception, that this all died outside the Dakota apartment block in New York on December 8th 1980 when a mind-controlled Mark Chapman shot John Lennon. It was Lennon who said:

O"ur society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."

I can't think of many mainstream rock stars who would say that publicly today - or this:

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?"

Lennon was a unique man who had understood much about reality and the illusory 'freedom' of the 'free world'. As he said in his song, Working Class Hero:

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still f*cking peasants as far as I can see"

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/yokoandlennon.JPG

Where is Lennon's like today in the music 'industry'? The new 'rock rebels' can be found playing at an ever-gathering stream of concerts with 'Live' in their name. I am convinced these concerts must be part of a breeding programme, so often do they now appear. They and their stooges-on-stage are dedicated to 'saving Africa' or 'saving the planet' while serving the very forces of deceit and control that Lennon so memorably identified. The spider has them glued to its web.

Rockers like 'Prince of Darkness' Ozzy Osborne and his wife have joined the club big-time and we have rock 'Sirs' like Paul McCartney and 60's 'rebel' Mick Jagger:

'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.'

A profound expression of the establishment suction machine is the case of the honorary 'Sir' Bob Geldof, another royal honour-bearer, and Bono of the band, U2. For me, Bono has always been more lightweight in his presentation of global injustice, but at the time of Live Aid in 1985 Geldof was magnificently outspoken about the system's built-in bias that blights the lands and lives of billions.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/sirgeldof.JPG

What has happened to him since the surly became a 'Sir'? The construct appears to have vibrated him into line. We now have the sight of Geldof praising Boy Bush for what he has 'done' for Africa, and the same with Tony Blair and his successor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Bono called them 'the John and Paul of the global development stage' in his bid to be Sycophant of the Year.

A greater insult to Lennon, though not McCartney, is hard to conceive.

Blair and Brown are architects of the very rape of Africa and its like that Geldof once so brilliantly articulated. They both supported and instigated finance and action that has led to the death or maiming of more than a million civilians in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

They supported and campaigned for sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s which, even according to United Nations figures, cost the lives of more than half a million children. As with all 'Western' governments, their trade and finance policies have devastated countries in Africa.

Even so, Geldof told the Labour Party Conference that Blair and Brown had helped to change the political landscape by putting Africa at the top of the agenda at the 2005 G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, when, in reality, Gleneagles was all a show, a sleight of hand to which Geldof, Bono and their 'Live-8' rock concert gave essential cover.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/bushbono.JPG

It wasn't that they meant to, but they became so close to the manipulators they fell for the manipulation. Now Geldof and Bono rightly complain that the promises for Africa made at Gleneagles have not been delivered. Of course not, chaps. They were never meant to be.

But the Live-8 concert in London before the summit gave the impression of people power at work and the political leaders gave the impression that they succumbed to that pressure when it was just a magic trick with the rock stars of Live-8 used to pedal the deception.

Rock stars don't change anything anymore because the system has them by their guitar strings, not least because they walk or strut on the stage in ignorance of the cause they are supposed to be supporting. Anyway, a worldwide audience on live television? Crikey, can't miss out on all that PR and name-awareness. Think of the record sales. They're not all like that, but for sure many of them are.

This week came a new low in the concert circus with 'Live Earth', the global manipulation of reality to sell the lie that rising temperature is caused by human activity, thus giving the manipulators the excuse for more taxation, global laws and centralised control to 'save the world'.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/algoresaveworld.JPG

The Illuminati front man for this grotesque misrepresentation of 'climate change' is the practising Satanist, the so-appropriately named, Al Gore, who was given free-range on worldwide television to deliver the deceit that human-created carbon dioxide threatens our very existence. Gore used 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006, 20 times the American national average, but, hey, don't criticise the High Priest of the Carbon Cult or we'll dub you a 'global warming denier', you horrible person.

The official companion publication to Live Earth is the Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook written by David Mayer de Rothschild, son of the notorious Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, and tool of the Rothschild dynasty, one of the most central and influential of the Illuminati satanic bloodlines.

The fact that these concerts at locations across the world took place on July 7th - 7/7 - the same day as the London bombings in 2005 (the week of Live-8) is no coincidence, either. The same force ultimately behind those terrorist attac
ks that killed more than 50 people is ultimately behind the global warming con.

First of all the hypocrisy on display if, as the rock stars believe, carbon dioxide is the culprit. The following are figures estimated by the London Daily Mail:

* Live Earth's 'carbon footprint' was 34,722 tons (82,122 tons if you include the television audience).

* The shows generated 1,130 tons of trash, some of which will go into landfills.

* Many of the stars, through their extensive touring on private jets, have 'carbon footprints' up to 200 times higher than that of the average Briton.

* Performers travelled an estimated 222,623 air miles to take part.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, called it 'private jets for climate change', but irony of ironies, while the concert was criticised for its 'carbon footprint', the real point continued to be missed:

Of course pollution is not a good thing, but it is NOT the cause of global warming - the Shadow People just want us to think it is to trigger all the benefits for them in justifying more central control of the planet.

Temperatures have been rising because the Sun has been releasing more solar radiation and this can be seen in the corresponding increase in sunspot activity - enormous explosions of energy on the Sun's surface that can be as big as the Earth, some as big as Jupiter.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/sunspots.JPG

Sunspots

Increased solar radiation has two main effects on the Earth's temperature. Firstly the obvious one, a 'hotter' Sun means a hotter Earth. Secondly, increased solar radiation reduces the amount of so-called cosmic rays reaching the Earth and it is the interaction of cosmic rays and water vapour that form clouds. The fewer clouds, the more heat from the Sun gets through.

The graphs of sunspot activity, high and low, and cosmic rays, high and low, to the corresponding rise or fall in the temperature on Earth are blatant confirmation of the fundamental relationship between the two.

For example, sunspot activity rose from long before the Industrial Revolution until 1940 and then fell to 1975 before increasing again from then until now. The Earth's temperature went up until 1940, fell until 1975, and has been rising ever since.

In fact, during that period up to 1975 when the temperature was falling there were television documentaries about fears of a new Ice Age!

Other planets, like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are experiencing rising temperatures because of the increased solar radiation and how can their climate change be explained by human-generated carbon dioxide??

When this point was put to global warming 'expert' and Live Earth supporter David Mayer de Rothschild, he said that those planets were getting warmer because they were "closer than the Earth to the Sun." !! I know, I always recommend deep breaths and a cup of sweet tea.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/solarmap.JPG

For David  Rothschild's benefit only

These are the mind-numbing depths to which the global warming 'debate' has descended. Ask the stars on the Live Earth stage about global warming and they would just parrot the official line having done no research whatsoever of their own. To have done so would have been to tell Gore and co where to stick it.

Instead they have added their voices to the insanity that is gathering pace by the hour about the threat of extinction by global warming. I received an email the other day detailing the campaign of a group calling itself <http://www.avaaz.org/en/about.php>Avaaz.org: The World In Action  which claims to be active in 125 countries.

It says that Live Earth reached millions of people, but now they needed to '... get started with the rest of the world'. It wants to 'turn the moment into an unstoppable global movement - the climate crisis demands nothing less'. It urges people to pledge their support for their country joining 'an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth'.

That is straight from the Illuminati wish-list.

Some sanity is breaking out here and there, though. Scott Armstrong, an international expert on forecasting methods, publicly challenged Gore this week to put his money where his manipulation is. Armstrong faxed and posted his 'Global Warming Challenge' to Gore which invited him to bet $10,000 that his alarming temperature predictions are correct over the next ten years. Armstrong would put up $10,000 in support of his contention that Gore is monumentally wrong. He said:

Gore says there are scientific forecasts that the Earth will become warmer very rapidly. But I have not found a scientific forecast that supports that view. There are forecasts made by scientists, of course, but they are very different from a scientific forecast.

The only way Armstrong can lose his bet is if the technology exists, as with the HAARP project in the United States, to influence Earth temperature artificially. HAARP, or the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, based in Alaska, targets the ionosphere, the uppermost part of the atmosphere. HAARP certainly has the potential to change the weather; the question is to what extent?

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/liveearth.JPG

One of the greatest of ironies in the Live Earth scam is that having 'concerted' for Africa several times, the same rock stars and their successors are now campaigning for measures to 'save the planet' that will pull up the ladder on Africa and prevent those countries using the technologies of the 'West'. But then, contradictions are identified by research and contemplation and little of that seems to go on among the music 'intelligentsia' of the private-jet-set.

Anyway, you can't be against the global warming establishment in today's politically-correct music establishment. That would be real bad for your image as a rock star who cares. Any chance of a rock star who thinks and challenges the prevailing propaganda?

Oh, sorry, forgot. Someone shot him.

http://www.rense.com/general77/concert.htm

Anyway, thought that was interesting.   Maybe it could go in the G8 thread from long ago as well......

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

53 (edited by ideascubed 2007-07-25 06:26:54)

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Hmm, I've always wondered about the '60's and 70's.  Did these couple of decades of  changes didn't happen because of several specific events.  For example, lots of women went into the workforce in the 60's and 70's.  I thought that happened because a lot of women whose mums had worked in the war machine of the 40's.  These  working mothers of the 40's may have valued the power that they had acquired as working women and passed it on to their children.  Setting up the idea that women could work, have power, share the experiences and self actualization and sharing those dreams and regrets. 

The same thing with the anti-war movement.  I've read biographies of WWII vets, and have met Korean Vets.  It seems the reality of war, was so different than the fantasy of  war.  By that I remember my brother, and neighborhood friends playing soldiers, and it seemed fun to them.  But reading the stories, hearing the tales, watching Band of Brothers,  and the other war movies (and not the idealized movies of the 50's with all those blockbuster stars), the reality of war is so painful, and heartbreaking.  Could it be that these dads, and uncles who survived shared how awful war was with their children as well as the widows, and the caretakers?  Would that conciousness show up as anti war protest?

Then again, was it the literal explosion of mind expanding drugs changing the world of the 60's and 70's?  I know drugs were around in the 1800's, and every decade since.  But it seems to me as I recall, that there appears to have been a correlation between explosive growth of everything, from the agricultural world to space technology and the idea of expanding one's mind-whether the mind expansion came from drugs or "inner technology" such as meditation.  The drugs of the past 20 some odd years doesn't seem to have the intent to expand as much as amp up the users brain.

And John Lennon was a spokesman for peace and change.  How many kids back then tried meditation because the boys (Beatles) were practicing it? 

Wow, doesn't the stuff that Lennon got in trouble for back then, seem like a cakewalk compared to the things that happens with media icons today.





It certainly doesn't seem as if the superstars of today

Re: The U.S. vs. John Lennon

Lyra,  thanks for posting that article.  We watched a bit of that live earth concert that day and I recall trying to explain to my friends what a sham the whole deal was (is).  Nice to see it written so clearly.