John Lennon's (left) Primal Screams … "I hated Lennon," one of the old madcaps says, defiantly, in Jonathon Green's oral history "Days in the Life: Voices From the English Underground, 1961-1971." "Oh yes. Lennon's no hero of mine. I cannot separate people and what they do from what they are. Lennon was unmitigatedly evil as far as I was concerned." Doesn't that sound terrible, like a kind of spiritual deformity — hating John Lennon? Tangled deep in the nervous system of every earthling over the age of 40, I would argue, is some fiber or filament of peak Beatlemania, some flicker of the old wild adoration. We want, we need — still — to love these men. – New York Times Review

Dominant Social Theme: The Beatles were just the best. They were geniuses and will be forever. These young men changed the world. They were like Jesus Christ.

Free-Market Analysis: The New York Times has reviewed an enormous new biography of Beatle John Lennon by Tim Riley, and in its publication (and the review) we find evidence of a much larger problem that the Anglosphere power elite continues to have. In this article, we'll try to explain …

Was it Lennon's personal philosophy that is so compelling? Hm-mm … sorry, he doesn't seem so very erudite to us and his songs – "Imagine," in particular – seem like muzzy-headed socialism. The Beatles were a very good rock and roll band, and Lennon was shot and died young; but none of this seems to explain the hold that Lennon still has.

Maybe people of a certain generation see in Lennon what they wish to see. Tim Riley seems to think so. Like all geniuses (his term) Lennon had numerous facets to his personality, he writes. "Cruel at times, chaotic, dissociated: on his bad days little more, so it seems, than a gigantic human flaw through which the shifting light of genius displayed itself. Challenging for biographers? Disorienting? Just a bit."

In fact, Albert Goldman, in The Lives of John Lennon claimed that Lennon suffered from a textbook case of multiple personality disorder. Tim Riley claims a "bipolar muse" for Lennon, confirming the diagnosis, perhaps. Here's some more from the review:

Here is Lennon in the fullness of his diffracted personality, across the spectrum of his phases and faces. Leather John, mugging sailors in Hamburg — "A Lennon punch felled him to his knees" — is superseded by Beatle John, mugging for the world's press …

His account of the writing and making of "Strawberry Fields Forever," for example, is a critical tour de force, equally in touch with the song's subterranean sources and the technical midwifery that drew it into the light. Lennon brought the song to the studio in November 1966, roughing it out on guitar for his brother Beatles and for George Martin, who later described the occasion as "a great privilege."

"Suddenly," Riley writes, "their most reliable cutup had enchanted them with a reverie of youth, which somehow made him sound older — and made the others feel older as well." Woozily regressive but sharp as splinters, "Strawberry Fields Forever" would take weeks to perfect, spliced and respliced, the finished article sounding, in Riley's phrase, "like a dream reassembled in a bottle."

Riley doesn't mention Mark Chapman by name — an aesthetic decision, perhaps a moral one. Lennon's assassin is an "anonymous figure," "a young autograph hound," a specter from the half-world of fandom who irrupts into the narrative at 10:50 p.m. on Dec. 8, 1980, with five gunshots. The force released at that moment, interestingly enough, released and then globally diffused, was the opposite of hate."

From our standpoint, there's a lot that Riley apparently doesn't mention … or at least that the review skips over. We've written about the Beatles before and the significant – shocking even – narrative of Paul McCartney's possible death and replacement, and the real reason for the Beatles' phenomenon. You can see a previous story here: Is Paul Dead?

At the time we related the following: "Who actually wrote the Beatles music? The person who actually wrote all the Beatles songs was Theodor Adorno, a music professor from Frankfurt University. And none of the songs were original, Adorno, a genius on the subject of theoretical music cleverly adapted well-known classical partitures, to create the Beatles songs." Our "Paul Is Dead" article elaborates on these theories.

In fact, we don't know this to be true, as we received the information from another source. We don't know either anymore if the original Paul was replaced by a "Faul" after a mid-1960s car accident. And yet … it seems plausible given all that we have come to understand (or perceive anyway) about 20th century directed history.

Here's the narrative concerning Paul McCartney's replacement as related online concerning an article in an Italian version of Wired magazine. (We do assume the article to be true and not a hoax but as we do not read Italian we cannot say for sure.) Funny, how it never made it across the pond in print …

The cover-story "Chiedi chi era quel" «Beatle» for the July 15 2009 issue of Wired Italia, the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, describes the analysis of the McCartney conspiracy theory conducted by two Italians, Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni. Their purpose for analyzing this conspiracy theory was to provide indisputable, scientific evidence that would put an end to the persistent rumors that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in 1966. However, the results of their analysis surprised them. Instead of putting an end to the rumors, their analysis provides scientific evidence that the Paul McCartney of today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney prior to 1966.

Oops! Why would Paul be replaced by Faul? One answer might be because the Anglosphere was doing its best to tear down Western culture and middle class values in the 20th century and a rock and roll was a good way to help accomplish that process. If one Beatle died, another would be found to continue the noble task. For global government to work, one needs an omnipotent state and the family needs to shrink – to nothingness, if possible.

All for the cause! And the others kept their mouths shut, though they did spend the rest of their careers leaving clues in albums and the like. Here's some more from the Wired article (in translation).

Who are Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni? Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney's skull from various photos of his face.

Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection. Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including individuals associated wit [the former Pope and the mistress of Benito Mussolini].

There are so many historical issues these days just "hanging" in the ether, and the cognitive dissonance grows bigger all the time. There are starting to be two distinct versions of history available to Western citizens, both amply accessible, one via mainstream media, the other via the Internet. One could speculate that this has never happened before in human history on such a wide scale. We do live in interesting times.

The mainstream media grinds on without acknowledging this. In this latest instance, John Lennon is acclaimed a genius in yet another hefty tome even though there are credible accusations that he neither composed nor wrote many of "his" early tunes. His bandmate McCartney is said to have died and been replaced; the Beatles themselves were perhaps an invention of Tavistock. McCartney et al. were the "good" Beatles. The Rolling Stones were the "bad" ones. Ever, the elites employ the Hegelian Dialectic.

Why is John Lennon a genius? Now perhaps we have arrived at the answer: The elites elected to make him so. The band, according to this theory, was part of a larger, societal programming process. The mainstream media's task was to create a certain divinity about the four young men. The whole mid-20th century, in fact, seems to us a kind of exercise in misinformation and cultural dissonance – and John Lennon perhaps was a pied piper for this sour tune.

But now there are … problems. In a sense, Lennon and the Beatles are a metaphor for the difficulties posed by the truth-telling of the Internet. Mainstream history has been so effectively undermined at this point (in our view) that it is putting into jeopardy many mainstream institutions that partake of the credibility of the flawed narrative. It is the proverbial "elephant in the room" – one even bigger than this 800-page monstrosity of a Lennon hagiography.