Post by Eggman on Oct 27, 2003 12:05:36 GMT
I found this article very interesting, perhaps any of you knew it.
Please read:
Paul McCartney Provides LSD Smokescreen
In the midst of Lennon’s fun and games with the power elite, his partner, Paul McCartney, made a colossal faux pas. On June 16, 1967, McCartney told a reporter he used LSD, four times. The public reaction was immediate and negative. McCartney was criticized heavily, but he proved to have the same Teflon armor worn by many politicians. Today, few people remember his controversial statement.
Was the LSD comment really an error in judgment, or was it a calculated statement designed to weaken Lennon? McCartney’s LSD remark validated the BBC’s position that the Beatles were experimenting with drugs, that A Day in the Life would encourage drug use, something that was clearly untrue. As I pointed out before, A Day in the Life had minimal drug references. But McCartney's comment—whether accidental or by design—provided the spin needed by the BBC to convince the public that it was justified in banning Lennon's renowned song.
If McCartney’s statement was in fact designed to weaken Lennon, the next question is Why? Why betray his friend? The motivation is obvious: Jealousy. In 1967, McCartney was only 25. He was obviously talented, but many viewed him merely as Lennon’s subordinate, a decent musician with the ability to sing tenor with John, croon a few ballads, and imitate Little Richard from time to time. In September 1967, Tony Palmer described the Beatles in London Magazine as "one giant, his side-kick and two midgets."19B Comments like that must have bruised McCartney’s ego quite a bit, not to mention the egos of George Harrison and Ringo Starr.
Nevertheless, Palmer’s abrasive words accurately reflected Lennon’s stature at that time. In 1967, Lennon was king. Many had declared him a genius. Within this context, it is quite plausible that someone from the FBI or British intelligence might have approached McCartney and asked him to more or less stab his friend in the back. In return, strings would be pulled; McCartney would be declared a genius from time to time, and Lennon would be viewed as HIS subordinate. Whether or not anyone approached McCartney with such a proposal remains a mystery, but it is a fact that McCartney began to gain more recognition around 1967.
If someone wanted to weaken Lennon, the smartest thing to do would be to turn McCartney against him. Despite his vast success, in many ways, McCartney must have felt cheated. He lived in the shadow of Lennon's brilliance. He was quite talented, a powerhouse singer, a talented and prolific songwriter, a top-notch bass player, a not too shabby pianist, and a hot guitarist. (NOTE: McCartney played the cutting edge guitar break in the middle of Ticket to Ride, not Lennon or Harrison.) Few stars have grown as much as Paul McCartney after achieving such monumental early success. Still he lacked something. He simply did not have Lennon’s inspiration, his creativity, or his charisma. McCartney did not have Lennon’s mind or his wit.
No one could blame McCartney for being jealous. All human beings succumb to the green-eyed monster at some point in our lives. Who among us would have been stronger in McCartney's place? Again, he was only 25. I am not asserting that McCartney had anything to do with Lennon’s murder. But it is quite plausible (and probable) that he was manipulated by Lennon’s powerful enemies to push the brash young rock star from his throne. In exchange, McCartney’s career was likely advanced. As time passed, Lennon became the Beatle most known for using drugs while McCartney's image as a family man flourished. Quite a role reversal for someone who once publicly admitted taking LSD.
Within two years, McCartney broke up with his longtime girlfriend Jane Asher and married Jewish American Princess Linda Eastman whose father Lee Eastman was a well known entertainment lawyer; so was her brother John Eastman. Lennon quickly developed a loathing for both men, particularly John Eastman, openly calling him an obnoxious "Jew Wasp."
Any comment?
Please read:
Paul McCartney Provides LSD Smokescreen
In the midst of Lennon’s fun and games with the power elite, his partner, Paul McCartney, made a colossal faux pas. On June 16, 1967, McCartney told a reporter he used LSD, four times. The public reaction was immediate and negative. McCartney was criticized heavily, but he proved to have the same Teflon armor worn by many politicians. Today, few people remember his controversial statement.
Was the LSD comment really an error in judgment, or was it a calculated statement designed to weaken Lennon? McCartney’s LSD remark validated the BBC’s position that the Beatles were experimenting with drugs, that A Day in the Life would encourage drug use, something that was clearly untrue. As I pointed out before, A Day in the Life had minimal drug references. But McCartney's comment—whether accidental or by design—provided the spin needed by the BBC to convince the public that it was justified in banning Lennon's renowned song.
If McCartney’s statement was in fact designed to weaken Lennon, the next question is Why? Why betray his friend? The motivation is obvious: Jealousy. In 1967, McCartney was only 25. He was obviously talented, but many viewed him merely as Lennon’s subordinate, a decent musician with the ability to sing tenor with John, croon a few ballads, and imitate Little Richard from time to time. In September 1967, Tony Palmer described the Beatles in London Magazine as "one giant, his side-kick and two midgets."19B Comments like that must have bruised McCartney’s ego quite a bit, not to mention the egos of George Harrison and Ringo Starr.
Nevertheless, Palmer’s abrasive words accurately reflected Lennon’s stature at that time. In 1967, Lennon was king. Many had declared him a genius. Within this context, it is quite plausible that someone from the FBI or British intelligence might have approached McCartney and asked him to more or less stab his friend in the back. In return, strings would be pulled; McCartney would be declared a genius from time to time, and Lennon would be viewed as HIS subordinate. Whether or not anyone approached McCartney with such a proposal remains a mystery, but it is a fact that McCartney began to gain more recognition around 1967.
If someone wanted to weaken Lennon, the smartest thing to do would be to turn McCartney against him. Despite his vast success, in many ways, McCartney must have felt cheated. He lived in the shadow of Lennon's brilliance. He was quite talented, a powerhouse singer, a talented and prolific songwriter, a top-notch bass player, a not too shabby pianist, and a hot guitarist. (NOTE: McCartney played the cutting edge guitar break in the middle of Ticket to Ride, not Lennon or Harrison.) Few stars have grown as much as Paul McCartney after achieving such monumental early success. Still he lacked something. He simply did not have Lennon’s inspiration, his creativity, or his charisma. McCartney did not have Lennon’s mind or his wit.
No one could blame McCartney for being jealous. All human beings succumb to the green-eyed monster at some point in our lives. Who among us would have been stronger in McCartney's place? Again, he was only 25. I am not asserting that McCartney had anything to do with Lennon’s murder. But it is quite plausible (and probable) that he was manipulated by Lennon’s powerful enemies to push the brash young rock star from his throne. In exchange, McCartney’s career was likely advanced. As time passed, Lennon became the Beatle most known for using drugs while McCartney's image as a family man flourished. Quite a role reversal for someone who once publicly admitted taking LSD.
Within two years, McCartney broke up with his longtime girlfriend Jane Asher and married Jewish American Princess Linda Eastman whose father Lee Eastman was a well known entertainment lawyer; so was her brother John Eastman. Lennon quickly developed a loathing for both men, particularly John Eastman, openly calling him an obnoxious "Jew Wasp."
Any comment?
