John Lennon: Why He Was One of the Greatest Hypocrites In History

John Lennon: Why He Was One of the Greatest Hypocrites In History

Imagine all of his famous lyrics to be lies.

Everyone knows the name John Lennon. Whether it is for his role in the iconic band, The Beatles, a solo artist or political activist, Lennon remains one of the most recognized names and faces of all time. I am and always will be a fan of John Lennon and his works. However, Lennon's pacifistic lyrics, earning him the title of being the poster man for peace, were merely a front that ultimately disguised his violent and inappropriate life behind the scenes.

Lennon grew up with his Aunt Mimi, as his father, a seaman, was no longer in the picture. And his mother, Julia, felt it was too much of a burden to raise John amidst her promiscuous lifestyle. This did not keep Lennon away, however. Against the wishes of Aunt Mimi, Lennon often went to visit his mother, Julia, who lived not too far away. Lennon grew inappropriate sexual urges towards Julia, but until the latter half of his life, denied this to ever be true. Lennon’s lyrics of his 1970 hit, “Mother,” also refuted these sexual claims by saying that Lennon never had Julia. The song states, “Mother, you had me but I never had you.”

Yet in the 1979 during an audio diary with then wife, Yoko Ono, his story completely changed. Lennon blatantly admits to Ono that he regretted not bedding his mother before her demise, saying:

It was when I was about 14.

I took a day off school, I was always doing that and hanging out in her house.

We were lying on the bed necking and I was thinking ‘I wonder if I should do anything else?’

I always think that I should have done it. Presuming she would have allowed me to.

In addition, Lennon was a dishonorable husband as well. Lennon was first married to Cynthia Powell, the mother of his first child Julian. In the beginning of the relationship, while on tour with the Beatles, Lennon wrote her quite often to proclaim his love. In one letter, Lennon wrote, "John Winston Lennon loves Cynthia Powell, and I’ll love you forever and ever, and isn’t that great?" Sweet, right? Lennon’s 1970 hit, “Love,” Lennon defines what love means to him, and therefore, what he felt for Powell as:

Love is you

You and me

Love is knowing

We can be

Love is free, free is love.

However, this wasn't the case. Lennon soon became extremely abusive towards Powell - beating her for any given reason he saw fit. Not only that, but Lennon became verbally abusive to his son, Julian, during his infancy as well. Powell recounted one instance in particular that damaged her son, Julian, heavily in her biography, John: "One incident in particular did him (Julian) lasting damage. The whole family had been having fun, making Mickey Mouse pancakes and fooling around, when Julian giggled. John turned on him and screamed, ‘I can't stand the way you fucking laugh! Never let me hear your fucking horrible laugh again.’ He continued with a tirade of abuse until Julian fled once again to his room in tears. It was monstrously cruel and has affected him ever since. To this day he seldom laughs.

Then Lennon drifted. He spent many nights away from the family, even when he wasn't on tour, and became heavily involved in the popularized drug scene of the late 1960s. Lennon rarely sent much money home for Julian and Powell to live on, and began an affair with a young female artist named Yoko Ono. Powell, in her novel, John, said she soon found out about Lennon’s affair from their housekeeper, who had seen Ono and Lennon together while Powell was out of town. Having had other one-night affairs during their marriage, Powell thought Ono and Lennon would be over quickly, and decided she would wait it out for the sake of their family.

However, Lennon filed for divorce soon after, and married Ono that same year. The two bought seven apartments at one of the most expensive buildings in New York City, The Dakota, each having a refrigerated room for their collections of expensive fur coats, a house in Long Island, a farm in Pennsylvania, three cars, and had developed an expensive heroin addiction, according to Philip Norman's interviews for his novel, John Lennon: The Life. For a writer who claimed to "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger..." he sure exhibited hypocrisy through his lavish lifestyle.

In addition, Lennon openly donated large sums of funds to an Irish terrorist group called the IRA, which negated his proclamations of "peace" and "love." He then admitted to having had many affairs with numerous women during the course of his second marriage, despite claiming that Ono was the forever and "only" love of his life in his 1971 song, "Oh Yoko!." And finally, Lennon and Ono's son, Sean, spoke of how Lennon permanently damaged his hearing through verbal abuse, despite promising to never harm him in his 1980 song, "Beautiful Boy."

Overall, it is clear that John Lennon, though the poster man for peace, was nothing but a human who possessed inhumane qualities. He may have written beautiful lyrics that many should aspire to follow the messages of, but he himself did not. In the end, a more accurate depiction of Lennon’s life through his lyrics would say something along the lines of, “Give Beast a Chance.”

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments