Lennon & Marx
paradoxes and bourgeois creature comforts
“Imagine all the people…” —J. Lennon (Sept. 9th, 1971)
Photo from the period when John and Yoko represented ‘anti-establishment’ values. Also pro-peace ideals:
Lennon’s song “Imagine” is the nostalgic anthem that the WEF co-opted and adapted to Karl Marx’s and Engels definitions which promote an anti-materialist/pro-techno-state platform for society’s governance. The deceptive notion of freedom found within the autocratic dictates of a “technocracy” (the same old elite bloodlines-now renamed as Big Tech corporations) may be considered as techno-feudal-fascism, or a hybrid of a communist-state run-government; hence, the ideals of authentic sovereignty are once again buried beneath the veneer of phony promises of a better more “equitable” world.
‘Imagine no corrupt oligarchs and politicians’ could’ve been a phrase Lennon might’ve added to his anthemic song.
Lennon himself stated that “Imagine” became a hit song and was able to reach more people with it’s simplistic pop poetry ,i.e., by“sugar coating” a political message. Meanwhile, the think-tanks, NGO’s, and corporate funded foundations (Rockefeller, Inc) hire clever conjurers (or use AI-ChatGPT) who create the advertisements which translate as contemporary political rhetoric.
In terms of Lennon’s idealism, and his dedication to peace & love, this basic human desire has been the cornerstone of religions throughout the world. The trouble begins when the ambitious politicians “re-package” a religious program in order to serve the big Money interests.
The World “Economic” Forum is nothing less than a digital banking construct which was conceived in 1971 because the Banksters in Davos knew that their ponzi (fiat currency racket) was destined to collapse. Henry Kissinger was a member of the elite planners (Bilderbergers) and also a mentor to Klaus Schwab.
The WEF think tank must’ve considered Lennon as useful stooge when “Imagine” became a top-Forty hit. Kissinger was on the Nixon team and was supportive of extraditing Lennon from the USA, and removing the rock and roll rabble-rouser from the anti-war media cycle.
Fast forward to 2020—
“Imagine no possessions, it’s easy if you try…”
And now— the WEF’s revision: “You will own nothing and be happy.” Except as any wary adult can see— who will own the mansions and all the land?
The simple answer is: BlackRock™. The controller-elite is the Dark Nobility.
In hindsight, the fact that “Imagine” and the WEF were both conceived in 1971 seems more than an interesting coincidence. The “European Management Forum” (EMF), was later renamed as the “World Economic Forum.” Of note—the EMF’s original focus on Europe expanded to encompass the entire world. [Nothing to see here, folks.] European banksters consolidated the entirety of Central Bank-controlled Europe into a tidy little acronym: “EU” …or EU™. The Central Bankers also conjured up the “€” or ‘euro’, which was an early form of centralized global currency(a gateway format in essence)—setting the stage for a one world currency by 2030. [*recent evidence suggests that the WEF will most likely fail in the quest to rule the world. The grand finale is in play now.]
WARS and TROUBADOURS
Lennon was a “peace-activist” during a time when the Vietnam war was killing and maiming US soldiers and the communist-led faction of Viet Cong freedom fighters. The purported contradictions between capitalist slave labor, and communist-indoctrinated state-enforced slave labor are truly not much different insofar that “freedom” and “sovereignty” are usurped by the owners of the factories and the ruling bloodlines on planet Earth. Lennon was also aware of his personal areas of political ambivalence, and commented on this in several interviews.
In the lyrics to “Revolution”, John sings:
[Pre-Chorus]
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out, in [the ambivalence: “in/out?”]
He also sings—
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
[Pre-Chorus]
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
“…Lennon retreated from his more radical views after his Some Time In New York City album was widely panned. He said in 1980 that his radicalism in the early 1970s was “phony, really, because it was out of guilt. I'd always felt guilty that I made money, so I had to give it away or lose it....being a chameleon, I became whoever I was with.”
The Working Class Hero
John Lennon and The Beatles story is a classic tale of predatory middlemen exploiting a talented band who churned out mega-hit records during the 1960’s. The Beatles inspired thousands of musician-songwriters to pick up the guitar and create a hit record. Every rock biography I’ve read mentions The Beatles or Lennon as a source of inspiration. Lennon cited that his own inspiration for forming a band occurred when watching the movies that Elvis Presley made early in his career. Lennon remembered the moment when he realized what he wanted to do with his life while watching Elvis on the silver screen: “That’s a good job!”, Lennon stated in interviews when he recounted the moment of inspiration.
John Lennon starred in the movie, “How I Won the War”in 1967
As anyone that has pursued music or acting (or any other career in the arts) knows, “it beats working for a living”—but there’s a paradoxical caveat, “don’t give up your day-job.”
And this is the paradox of capitalism and a free market—a ‘pay to play’ business model — most often skewed in favor of the middlemen and moguls who run the entertainment industry. The music equipment manufacturers and sales force also make a decent living selling the tools of the trade to the performers. During a musician’s lifetime, the fees and investment capital necessary in order to perform professionally add up to many thousands of dollars—with zero guarantee that this investment capital will translate as the coveted life-altering record deal. This “casino” context defines much of the Capitalist format, and in particular, the quintessential gambler’s racket we call, “Wall St.”
In the case of any artist-musician’s possible early retirement, aka, “suicide” or “accidental overdose”, this may be likened to Russian Roulette. We may find further clues in the lyrics of Robbie Robertson’s, “American Roulette.”
“American Roulette”—the ‘Elvis’ reference:
“Take that boy and put him in a mansion
Paint the windows black
Give him all the women that he wants
Put a monkey on his back
All of your so called friends
Take you where the sidewalk ends
I said, can't sleep at night, no
Can't sleep at night
Lord please save his soul
He was the king of Rock and Roll…
American Roulette
Stake your life upon it
American Roulette
Same eyes, same eyes
American Roulette”
—from the solo album, “Robbie Robertson”-1987
In Lennon’s case, The Beatles were most fortunate to have found one of the great managers in the history of rock and roll, Brian Epstein. With a talented professional manager in tow, The Beatles were able to negotiate a decent contract with EMI, and this led to exceptional radio play, and the rise of the group to prominence as hit makers and world fame. Brian was a genuine ally— and fortunately for the fab four, was not a predatory businessman in the way Col. Tom Parker was for Elvis.
And in the end, the money the Beatles made was not equal to the love they shared.
The record label and many memorabilia hucksters made millions of ducats on all sorts of nostalgic Beatles keepsakes— from yellow submarines, to bobble-head figurines, to the fab lunch boxes. Today’s recording artists understand the mechanics of the music business in ways that were unfamiliar territory to the earliest pop groups during the 1960’s. Nowadays, the shrewd rappers speak the lingo of soundtrack “placement” in movies, and just about every other piece of ‘merch’ imaginable. In today’s realm, negotiating a “royalty” is better understood than how to write a hit song.
In my sense of ‘what’s wrong with the music business?’—the simple answer is:
—Too many lawyers and not enough Artistry.
“ROYALTY” is an odd choice as a contractural term…
Fighting for a decent song royalty is the standard story line for every iconic performer who has ever succeeded in the biz. Royalties are— in the best case scenario—a retirement policy. To live in a manner suited to royalty is another aspect of superstardom that few artists or actors will ever realize. Most recently, Taylor Swift has emerged as royalty among the millions of wannabe pop stars.
She “made it”, as the saying goes.
Made what exactly?
…A whole lot of dough, and a whole lot of recognition via the entertainment promotion machine—as Joni Mitchell’s song lyric in “Free Man in Paris” goes:
“…But for the work I've taken on
Stoking the star maker machinery
Behind the popular song…”
The Franchise
In the case of James Arness (who played sheriff Matt Dillon for 20 yrs), “Gunsmoke” TV reruns subsidized his lifestyle after the series was cancelled. Arness was also a shrewd businessman, and he became a co-producer of the Gunsmoke franchise. Many actors have followed this strategy, especially as a TV series becomes indelibly linked to a particular actor-star.
When considering financial attributes like ‘royalties’ and ‘contractural terms’ these mechanisms appear as a form of socially responsible safety net. If an artist has produced a product (the actor is in essence— “a brand”) that keeps on giving after the corporate contract is fulfilled,i.e., the record deal ends or when the TV show is cancelled— an artist still needs to pay their bills.
The dark side of the artist-creator business arrangement has played out time and time again where the producer-moguls live like kings, while the artists who produced the product get a pittance of the proceeds that resulted directly from their sweat and toil as creative artists.
One particular tale of woe involves Hedy Lamarr, who was arrested for shop-lifting years after Hollywood moguls discarded her (after the age of 40—many actresses complain that they can’t find work) and she moved to a tiny apartment. She was also robbed of much-deserved royalties for her contribution to sonar tech that the US Navy used during the war. Lamarr was a bona fide screen siren, and a very brainy lady, just not cut-throat on the money-side of things—which is typical of many artists throughout history. Consider Van Gogh as another example. He gave the world, “A Starry Night”, and lost an ear along the way. Artists give the world so much, and often receive so little in return.
Maniacal record label owners, or movie studio moguls, justify their piracy due to the nature of the cut-throat industry itself. The saying, “It’s nothing personal—only business” seems like a form of justification for stingy behavior. It’s not only ‘greed’ that sustains the patterns of self-serving commerce—it’s the entirety of a centralized bank model which has cultivated the ideations of poverty (lack consciousness) and its opposite: abundance. The nature of ‘poverty/abundance’ is an ‘either/or’ proposition.
Just to make the point clear: I’m not advocating for communism as the solution to all of humanity’s woes. The experiments with communism thus far have been dismal failures.
And yet, many tribal peoples throughout history embraced their own versions of the golden rule—honored the land which sustains human life; and recycled waste in a manner which was reverential to the Earth mother, or “Gaia.” The tribal management structures I’m speaking of are akin to ‘communal-values’; just as we have accepted the idea of ‘community’ as a structure that supports our collective well being. If we break down the term ‘community’ we see, comm-unity. The Latin word "communis," means "common." “Community” is derived from, “land held in common” (c. 1600).
We are also familiar with the terms, “Commonwealth,” and “Common Law.”
The life-affirming ‘principles’ embodied by ancient societies and indigenous tribes throughout history have never required categorized academic labels encumbered with an “ism-schism.”
Marx began as a Journalist…
Karl Marx was hired to write a book, which he co-authored with Friedrich Engels. Particular philosophical elements of Marx’s treatise were co-opted by political interests. Marxist principles have been repurposed in a manner that has served the powerful oligarchs and their appointed rulers. Regardless of the political model, i.e., communism, socialism, or capitalism— emerging governments (also: kings, queens) require a maintenance staff in order to support the continuation of Bankster hegemony.
Consider the recent emergence of the BRICS alliance as an illustration of eco-financial interests in service to international commerce. Whatever became of the CCP and Maoist doctrine? China has become some type of economic hybrid, more closely resembling a model reliant upon capital-dominance, rather than obsolete forms of communism.
I realize that the academics who have made it a life’s career choice to study Marx and communism can run circles around my statements; however, when it comes to a career choice—is the decision to become a Marxist expert based on a love for knowledge and truth? Or was the career choice based on the need to find a niche in the money-matrix menu in order to pay the rent?
The French philosopher, Rousseau (1712-1788) was influential for Engels and Marx. Rousseau addressed the problems of inequality and equity from a dualistic perspective, whereby obvious perceived limitations which are imposed via age, gender, or physicality are superfluous insofar that we are born as we are born, and we all will die when we die. How we chart our course along the way is what holds meaning.
What is notable for me has to do with ‘time and place.’ The philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived during a time that historians call the ‘Age of Enlightenment.’ The American and French revolutions were symbolic of the people’s awakening to the rule of monarchs and royal bloodlines who maintained the social class hierarchy— which directly benefited those who were born unto Royalty. The inherent class distinctions, and bloodline-regulated “system”of rule had reached an apex as greater numbers of human beings realized that subsidizing the ‘Royals’ was not always beneficial to life and liberty for anyone relegated to the rank of serf. Consider the fact that in the British Monarchy, a ‘serf’ is labeled—a “Royal subject”—translation: ‘chattel’ in service to The Royal Crown.
It was the great “aha” moment as the commoners chose to defy the monarchies, and create a democratic program that would better serve the needs of the People.
Viva le Revolution!…or ‘RESETs 101’
In the second part of Rousseau’s dualistic definition of inequality, we are apprised of the aspects of a dynamic of what I would label as, “class distinctions”, or “merit-based coordinates.”
“…another [area of inequality], which may be called moral or political inequality [or also the inequality among men], because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized, by the consent of men. This latter consists of the different privileges which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others; such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience.”—New Left Review
The elements of ‘privilege’ are most often considered as acceptable as an intrinsic element in a societal “pecking order.” Just as we fans of particular artists and pop-stars subsidize the artist-creators because we enjoy their art—and therefore, we actually choose who we wish to make famous. We recognize and reward talent—in the best case scenario. And when an artist becomes a global icon, well…? We the people support this through album sales, movie tickets, and concert fees. This profit scheme is labeled, “free market-capitalism.” And yet, it’s not really free. The artists always pay to play until a lucky break comes their way; and yet, rarely is there a windfall of the magnitude as in the case of Taylor Swift.
Enforcing, or regulating the realm of artistic creativity is a problem unto itself. To some degree, gaining access to the necessary elements of distribution of any product, and negotiating a beneficial contract for the product’s distribution still remains a crap shoot. There are too many variables to regulate fairly.
We independent artists struggle along, and do the best we can, often diffusing our focus as we engage in other enterprises in order to support our art.
I interviewed a talented and successful artist, Roy, about a decade ago, a man who was born in the West Indies. He passed from this life a number of years ago, having lived with cancer for a decade. One of the things he said to me regarding his dedication to his art had to do with the idea of survival in a ‘capital-dominant’ realm. We were discussing how we must negotiate our terms as sovereigns living in a capital-dominant society. He said, “ Before you’re a successful artist, and you’re trying to make ends meet…people will argue that you must have a real job in order to make a whole lotta, f__g money…and then you will have the time to create your art!” The caveat as Roy saw it, (and I agree) is that when you spend all your time subsidizing your life as an artist, you’re not creating art.
The contradictions are glaringly obvious to all who have made the efforts to create a small business or pursue the life of an artist-writer-musician-actor. [all areas that I have pursued professionally, and have firsthand knowledge of in accord with the market place.]
In Roy’s case, he made a few compromises that were not entirely unrelated to his life’s work. For example, he was commissioned by a city to design and build a very large sculptural piece. The amount he received for this commission was enough to subsidize his time in order to allow for the freedom to paint his canvases, and create smaller sculptures. We are often aware, as independent creators, that we are in effect—buying time in order to be free to do what we actually want to do.
In a twisted sense, this is roughly what the WEF says they are doing when they create a digital prison for our regulated existence: allowing for our freedom to exist as we see fit (and yet, in actually: as we are allowed to exist by a techno-feudal state), and not worrying about paying the rent.
I wonder if Karl Marx might defend the Obamala/Schwab model for equity and equality. Or would Marx write off Kammie and Klaus as dilettantes of no great merit?
One detail I rarely hear the Marx apologists discuss has to do with the Banking matrix, and money in general. Karl Marx is reported to have enjoyed fine cigars and cognac, both of which are pricey bourgeois accoutrements. Would the State be required to deliver Marx his favorite Cuban cigars by the box every week—while the tobacco workers in Havana work in sweat shops?
On the topic of Central Banks, we will be better off without them. The Quantum Financial System is reportedly the answer to our prayers. I have read that the QFS cannot be hacked, and cannot be used for criminal money laundering.
I believe it’s possible to engage a system of merit-based equity, and that our own efforts and talents can be rewarded. In the meantime, we must stop looking to the NGO’s like UN/WEF/WHO for our salvation.
Many of us left the matrix-merry-go-round years ago. Rebuilding the Republic is the task at hand. God-willing—we will inspire a younger generation to think for themselves and stop expecting Big Govt and Kammie-logic to save them from Big Tech.
Kammunism won’t work, kids!
pax
“American Pie” by Don McLean
And while Lenin read a book on Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died
Re: “And while Lenin read a book on Marx”
Was McLean suggesting a parody?
…i.e., while ‘Lennon read a book on (Groucho) Marx’ ?
Assange on True History—
Vatican Shenanigans:
