Who Killed John Lennon?
"You gotta remember, establishment, it's just a name for evil. The monster doesn't care whether it kills all the students or whether there's a revolution. It's not thinking logically, it's out of control." -- John Lennon (1969)
In recent years, there have been countless stories about the U.S. government abusing its surveillance powers. They range from government agents listening in on the telephone calls of American citizens to the FBI harassing innocent people over their free speech rights for simply criticizing the government. And once some government bureaucrat decides to focus on a certain person, the data files are collected and civil liberties are undermined. This type of behavior, however, has been going on for a long time. Such was the relentless harassment and government stalking of John Lennon. It is not only a chilling tale of paranoia and abuse of power, it is also a lesson for our times.
In December 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out "John Sinclair," a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon's call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.
What Lennon did not know at the time was that FBI agents were in the audience, taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song. The U.S. government was spying on Lennon. Supposedly, the goal was to collect enough information to have him deported.
By March 1971, when his "Power to the People" single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the "monster" that was financing the war in Vietnam.
It certainly helped that Lennon was a natural in the spotlight, with one of the most recognizable faces in the world. And with the Beatles' break-up, Lennon began doing his own thing, posing for publicity photos, decked out in Japanese riot gear and singing "Say you want a revolution, We better get it on right away, Well you get on your feet, And into the street."
Lennon had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, he saw that his music could mobilize the public. For example, on November 15, 1969, during a peace rally in Washington, DC, Pete Seeger led nearly half a million demonstrators in singing Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" at the Washington Monument. "The people started swaying their bodies and banners and flags in time," Seeger later recalled, "several hundred thousand people, parents with their small children on their shoulders. It was a tremendously moving thing."
The release of Lennon's Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical message in every song and depicted Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the conflict to come.
Government officials had been keeping strict tabs on the ex-Beatle they referred to as "Mr. Lennon." But the official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 when he was served with deportation orders. While the orders were supposedly for a four-year-old marijuana conviction in Great Britain, what Lennon didn't realize was that Nixon was personally driving the effort to have him deported.
FBI files, made public after years of lawsuits, reveal the extent of the Nixon Administration's efforts to "neutralize" Lennon. (However, while ominous in tone, the term "neutralize" -- as used by government agents -- was never really defined.) With FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover at the helm and reporting to the Nixon White House about the FBI's surveillance of Lennon, memos and reports had been flying back and forth between senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office. Clearly forces were at work to "neutralize" Lennon.
Nixon's pursuit of Lennon was relentless -- and in large part based on the misperception that Lennon and his comrades were planning to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention. The government's paranoia, however, was misplaced.
Left-wing activists who were on government watch lists and who shared an interest in bringing down the Nixon Administration had been congregating at Lennon's New York apartment. But when they revealed that they were planning to cause a riot, Lennon balked. As he recounted in a 1980 interview, "We said, We ain't buying this. We're not going to draw children into a situation to create violence so you can overthrow what? And replace it with what? ...It was all based on this illusion, that you can create violence and overthrow what is, and get communism or get some right-wing lunatic or a left-wing lunatic. They're all lunatics."
Despite the fact that Lennon was not part of the "lunatic" plot, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country. As he said afterwards, "I have a love for this country. This is where the action is."
Lennon's time of repose didn't last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again. The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused, "The whole map's changed and we're going into an unknown future, but we're still all here, and while there's life there's hope."
That very night, when Lennon returned to his New York apartment building, Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows. As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI's moniker for Lennon, called out, "Mr. Lennon!" Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman -- dropping into a two-handed combat stance -- emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.
John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. He had finally been "neutralized."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The shear poetic genius of the man thrills me to this day. Sure he was a complex "victim of the insane" trying to get a handle on his pain but in that respect I think he talked for us all.
I loved the man.....I miss the man........
To quote McCartney, "John was killed by the jerk of all jerks." The jerk of all jerks who was and is mentally ill (he claims he is under control with medication and becoming "born-again", if I had a dollar for every con in prison who becomes born again, I 'd be rich) killed John Lennon. The government of this country under the near dictator, Richard Nixon, tried to kill his spirit, which they could not. Hoover was long dead before Lennon was murdered. Hell, Yoko and John attended the inaguaration of Carter. So I really don't think we can pin this on the government. Yoko is right to continue to ask that the jerk of all jerks be kept behind bars. As long as she, Paul, Olivia, Ringo, Barbara and all their children are alive, that man is just too dangerous to be free. Peace and love to one and all.
LOL. And the Google ad at the bottom of the page is for FBI Jobs - Apply And Lean About Special Agent Jobs! Semantic web? I think not!
A) He wasn't "neutrilized" -- some mentally deranged person killed him for his own perverse egotistical reasons.
B) His political messages were best expressed through his music and live on to this day.
C) What killed John Lennon, which is never answered in your post, was fame. Pure and simple. Chapman wouldn't have killed him otherwise. The people giveth and they taketh away. God bless, John Lennon.
"The government's paranoia, however, was misplaced."
Yes... It was apparently placed into you.
I recall reading a Playboy Interview with Lennon after the Beatles broke up. It wasn't nice. He made a comment about Paul's music 'being apparently about nothing' and I was left with a negative impression of him. After that, all that 'give peace a chance' stuff didn't really seem genuine when he was estranged from some of his closest relationships while lecturing the world.
One of the trickiest things is being able to tell if someone is really walking the walk or just talking the talk. So many times we've discovered that what people said didn't match how they really lived. The tragic part is that there are truly authentic generous, loving, forgiving people amongst us who tend to be invisible because they aren't patting themselves on the back publicly.
It really is a difficult one to come to terms with. But you are correct. The oneold saw that makes me laugh is the one about the rebel Bob Dylan, a guy who rehashed the works of real radical folk singers and cavalierly left the politics behind, still writing supposed anthems. The establishment is evil? These guys seemed to line their lives nicely with it.
to call dylan a re-hash is to blame him for being younger than the first wave of folk protestors, and it belittles his eloquence...
plus, with baez as muse, can you blame the geeky kid for drinking the kool aid?
what lovely music he left us.
There's a bit of a difference between advocating peace and not particularly liking the music your ex-bandmate wrote. One involves government sponsored slaughter, and one involves possibly poor taste.
If you read enough info on the Beatles, you'll find that John was a very insecure person. John was jealous of Paul's ability to write hits and also of Paul's workaholic nature.
Of course John had no reason to be jealous, as he was just as brilliant as Paul, but he would complain that Paul would show up with ten new songs forcing him to have to go to work writing his own.
John once complained to George Martin that no one would ever come out of a restauraunt humming "I Am The Walrus," and fans used to bug John by telling him how much they loved "Yesterday."
It all came to a head when Paul refused to accept Allen Klein as the Beatles' new manager, and when Paul announced, with much public hoopla, that he was leaving the group, John felt betrayed.
After that, John went on a public tirade trashing Paul for a couple of years. It really was like watching a public divorce, with the angry Lennon spewing out years of pent up anger at his old partner. Very painful to watch as a Beatle's fan, and I'm glad they patched things up before Lennon was murdered.
The thing about John is, he was always honest about his failure to live up to his ideals, and he never stopped trying to get past his demons. The real shame is, his songwriting on his last record suggested he may have finally found peace within himself.
Excellent, succinct, summation of John v. Paul.
As a person who loved the Beatles from their first record in '64, I was devastated along with all the other fans when he was murdered.
It might be more interesting to imagine some sinister government plot behind this heinous crime, but the sickening truth is it's sad testament to society's fascination with fame.
Lennon was murdered by a disturbed individual who lusted in vain for fame. When it was obvious that fame would never come, he settled for eternal infamy.
Yes, we know, the Nixon White House and Hoover FBI certainly targeted John Lennon. But Chapman was a loonie, not a patsy. After all, by 1980, Nixon was long gone from power, and Jimmy Carter was just finishing up his only term. It's a terrible, horrible thing that happened outside the Dakota that night, but it was not a conspiracy.
The Government was jealous and afraid of the power Lennon exhibited. That's why they made his life miserable and tried to kick him out of the country.
Weak. John, this story has already been told, many many times. While the death of Lennon saddened me greatly, you can't very well infer a connection between Chapman and the US government without some kind of evidence. What evidence do you have, other than his calling him, "Mr. Lennon?" You're really grasping here.
Evidence lies in U.S. history.
Blowing up the Maine.
Gulf of Tonken (Spelling?)
Watergate.
Iran/Contra.
WMD/Iraq.
Too name a few.
I don't think John was exactly blaming the government. But connecting the dots can lead you to believe that it was possible.
And after 8 years of BushCo, well, I'd believe just about anything now.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
