All Those Years Ago - George Harrison

[Voyager1]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Smw33PKJA[/youtube]

Prior to John Lennon's death, Harrison originally wrote the song with different lyrics for Ringo Starr to record. Having previously recorded the music for the song, Harrison tailored the lyrics to serve as a personal tribute to his former Beatles bandmate John Lennon, following the latter's murder on 8 December 1980.

Lyrics

I'm shouting all about love
While they treated you like a dog
When you were the one who had made it so clear
All those years ago

I'm talking all about how to give
They don't act with much honesty
But you point the way to the truth when you say
All you need is love

Living with good and bad
I always looked up to you
Now we're left cold and sad
By someone the devil's best friend
Someone who offended all

We're living in a bad dream
They've forgotten all about mankind
And you were the one they backed up to the wall
All those years ago
You were the one who imagined it all
All those years ago

All those years ago
All those years ago

Deep in the darkest night
I send out a prayer to you
Now in the world of light
Where the spirit free of lies
And all else that we despised

They've forgotten all about God
He's the only reason we exist
Yet you were the one that they said was so weird
All those years ago
You said it all though not many had ears
All those years ago
You had control of our smiles and our tears
All those years ago

----

Notice the line "While they treated you like a dog" - this is referring to how the US government treated John Lennon through his immigration case. "They don't act with much honesty".

"I always looked up to you" George never looked up to John. This line got left in from the original. It was referring to Ringo.

Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's killer was under CIA mind control to kill John Lennon. Lennon was anti-war and seen as a threat to the establishment.

[gsjackson]

Just finished The Devil's Chessboard about the CIA of Allen Dulles and their numerous assassinations, including the Kennedy brothers. It's got me convinced. I hadn't realized there was speculation about RFK, and Sirhan Sirhan as victim of CIA mind control, set up, like Lee Harvey Oswald, to be the patsy. The mortal wound came from an angle behind Kennedy from which Sirhan couldn't have fired, and RFK was led into the kitchen by a shady character with CIA connections. Interesting that the CIA was zionized enough at that point to try to make Americans think a Palestinean had committed the murder. Lennon too, huh?

In our various critiques of the U.S. and why it has become such a dismal place, we neglect to mention that at the top of the food chain of power, and in its actions in the world beyond, it is pure evil. No other word will do.

[Cornfed]

Just finished The Devil's Chessboard about the CIA of Allen Dulles and their numerous assassinations, including the Kennedy brothers. It's got me convinced. I hadn't realized there was speculation about RFK, and Sirhan Sirhan as victim of CIA mind control, set up, like Lee Harvey Oswald, to be the patsy. The mortal wound came from an angle behind Kennedy from which Sirhan couldn't have fired, and RFK was led into the kitchen by a shady character with CIA connections. Interesting that the CIA was zionized enough at that point to try to make Americans think a Palestinean had committed the murder. Lennon too, huh?

In our various critiques of the U.S. and why it has become such a dismal place, we neglect to mention that at the top of the food chain of power, and in its actions in the world beyond, it is pure evil. No other word will do.

Don't forget Reagan. He was clearly meant to die. They had a shooter who was somehow allowed through, but they also had a backup (the explanation for the bullet entering on the opposite side of his body was that it ricocheted off the car door - yeah right). Then the SS supposedly got lost on their way to the hospital. Lol do you suppose the SS would get lost in any major city in the world? But the tough old bastard simply wouldn't die. However, he knew which side his bread was buttered on for the rest of his pretended presidency.

[Kradmelder]

Just finished The Devil's Chessboard about the CIA of Allen Dulles and their numerous assassinations, including the Kennedy brothers. It's got me convinced. I hadn't realized there was speculation about RFK, and Sirhan Sirhan as victim of CIA mind control, set up, like Lee Harvey Oswald, to be the patsy. The mortal wound came from an angle behind Kennedy from which Sirhan couldn't have fired, and RFK was led into the kitchen by a shady character with CIA connections. Interesting that the CIA was zionized enough at that point to try to make Americans think a Palestinean had committed the murder. Lennon too, huh?

In our various critiques of the U.S. and why it has become such a dismal place, we neglect to mention that at the top of the food chain of power, and in its actions in the world beyond, it is pure evil. No other word will do.

I dont know when the jews took over the USA and all the kikery started. Certainly by the 60s jews were behind all sorts of anti-white movements, even if Nixon hated jews. By the 1970s the CIA was already anti-white and funding black terrorists to kill white people who were once americas allies. SA even fought 2 world wars on the wrong side, on the side of the brits and yanks, but that didnt stop the yanks turning on us. Your uberJew Kissinger was also up to his shenanigans. If you look at what happened in southern africa in the 1970s you will see how CIA was involved in anti-white activities.

In 1975 SA intervened in the Angolan Civil War, for its own survival and representing the anti-communist West in the Cold War conflict. In this war they fought cubans and russian advisors. South Africa was acting in Angola as an agent of American interests.

“The US government urged South Africa, which might otherwise have hesitated, to act,” writes Piero Gleijeses, the preeminent specialist in Cuban and American foreign relations.

P. W. Botha told Parliament:

I know of only one occasion in recent years when we crossed a border and that was in the case of Angola when we did so with the approval and knowledge of the Americans. But they left us in the lurch… . The story must be told of how we, with their knowledge, went in there and operated in Angola with their knowledge, how they encouraged us to act and, when we had nearly reached the climax, we were ruthlessly left in the lurch.

The Director of Operations for the Army Jannie Geldenhuys echoed this line in his memoirs.

“The turning point of the war … was the new law passed by the American Congress forbidding military support to any Angolan Party.”

The National Party’s anti-communism was harder than in any other “Western” country. For example, South Africa eagerly volunteered its air force for the Berlin airlift in 1949 and the Korean War the next year. Its laws covered many more communist political activities and punished them more harshly than parallel legislation elsewhere. For this, they were allies of the USA. SA got involved in angola to prevent a communist regime which would support terrorists on our borders.

By 1975 SADF columns were in Angola and moving northwards fast after the collapse of the portuguese. South Africa’s was not the only covert operation on the ground. The Ford Administration was also supporting SAa, black allies, the FNLA-UNITA anti-communist coalition. The CIA was behind american involvement.

For South Africa, the plan had always been to support the FNLA and UNITA until 11 November, when Portugal had committed to handing over power to whoever was “in control” of Angola. South Africa wanted to help UNITA and the FNLA form a credible alterna­tive to the communists.

records show the yank two faced policy of using fellow white people then throwing them to the wolves:

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BRENT SCOWCROFT: Option B, encouraging South Africa. What does that include specifically?

COLBY: They’d like to get their troops out, and hire mercenaries. They say that they don’t have the money to do this and have turned to us. I think that this is political dynamite. The press would be after us. They and [the] Africans would say that the MPLA is supported by the big, brave Russians, while the others are backed by the bad South Africans and Americans. That would be unpleasant.
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH SISCO: More than that. Your description is too mild. What is in the interests of the South Africans? They have more interest in being there than we do and they don’t need our help. I do not favor giving any support to the South Africans.

When Washington failed to entice other countries to put their forces into Angola in place of the diplomatically toxic apartheid armies, it decided to induce Pretoria to keep its forces in place and prevent an MPLA rout.

This was the context for Kissinger’s carefully crafted response to South Africa’s request for more American military assistance. The response rejected the request for additional American weapons for the coalition, insist­ing that “the FNLA and UNITA have received enough and adequate arms for their defense.” The response also suggested that Washington “shar[ed] the concern of the RSA over the danger of the provocative role of the Russians and the Cubans in Angola” and would “regard the imposition by force of a Soviet/ Cuban/ MPLA regime in Angola with great concern.”

Kissinger’s was a masterclass in dip­lomatic obfuscation. His message invited the recipient — especially one as diplomatically exposed and desperate for Washington’s acceptance, like Pretoria — to perceive an expression of solidarity between the two countries. But it also carefully avoided anything that could be identified as either a positive American response to Armstrong’s request or an appeal for an additional South African commitment.

Vorster was duly confused. How could Washington be simulta­neously alarmed at communist bloc success in sub-Saharan Africa, which from its perspective was a major issue for the “free world,” but not be prepared to contribute the resources to roll back the incoming forces?

Washington continued to string the South Africans along into December, even as the military situation deteriorated. For instance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ed Mulcahy told South African embassy diplomats in Washington that around US$25 million had thus far been spent by the United States in support of the FNLA and UNITA and “that [the] United States would continue along these lines as long as it felt necessary.” Like Kissinger’s opaque response to South Africa’s request for more arms, Mulcahy’s message was carefully crafted to hit the emotional buttons of the isolated South African government without making unequivocal commitments. It gave the appearance that Washington would stay the course, when it was in fact looking resolutely for the exit.

the US Senate passed the Tunney Amendment by the margin of 54 votes to 22 — hardly a close vote — preventing the Ford Administration from contributing further funds to the anti­communist coalition.

South Africa had been left high and dry, its troops exposed in Angola, and its diplomats in the firing line on the global stage. But that Pretoria was caught unawares by Congress’s cessation of funding and the American failure to provide more tangible support to the anticommunist coalition is at least as much an indictment of Vorster’s mishandling of the entire enterprise as it is of Kissinger’s shameless realpolitik.

Note how that kike farked over the white man in africa,

Even as South African troops withdrew from Angola in early 1976, the belief quickly took root that the SADF would have routed the Cuban-backed MPLA if the US Congress had not betrayed America’s commitments to stand shoulder to shoulder with the South Africans.

Certainly, Washington supported the involvement of the armies of the apartheid regime in a power struggle in independent Africa, encouraged feelings of solidarity in Pretoria, and then left South Africa bearing the military and diplomatic cost of the joint effort. Reflecting on events in January 1976, Kissinger told his inner circle: “We didn’t encour­age them to go into Angola, but we certainly— they did the only fighting that was going on there for a while.”

What they said In Sa

“It is already well known how President Ford and Dr. Kissinger’s efforts to lend help … were thwarted by the US Congress…. The West is how­ever currently too wishy washy [pap en slap] to expect any help from.”

The Ford Administration was in a bind. In public, it rejected the notion that it had collaborated with South Africa. At the height of the diplomatic furor over South Africa’s intervention, Ford instructed his African embassies to tell their hosts: “The US in no way sought or encouraged the South Africans to become involved in Angola nor was our advice sought.” (Though delicately worded, this was not true.)

But with the MPLA victorious and thousands of Cuban troops in Angola, the United States realised it desperately had to prevent the emergence of a full-blown Cold War conflict in Southern Africa in which its de facto allies would be the racist white settler regimes. The Ford Administration reversed course and suddenly resolved to advocate for majority rule in Southern Africa. But it needed South Africa’s help to bring pressure on white regimes in Rhodesia and South-West Africa to give up power peacefully.

After this sorry american involvement, SA had to fight on on its own, against cuba and russia, and sanctions imposed on it by its false allies, the UK and USA. The CIA and the uberJew blatantly encouraged SA to go down a road in the best interests of the west. Once committed, they left the south africans in the lurch and promptly changed sides and mounted a campaign against SA. In what way did this serve the USA? It may have served Israel as SA had to turn to israel for arms in a very bad deal where they got our uranium. Once they got the uranium and research facilities they wanted, the kikes promptly turned on SA as well and imposed sanctions, using apartheid as an excuse. Apartheid didnt bother them before when they wanted Uranium, nor did their own apartheid offend them. What chutzpah.

As a result, it is clear that listening to the jew is like clutching a viper to your chest. Trusting america as an allie is almost as dangerous as trusting the Italians. This is not to say americans are like that; just that their government is not to be trusted. Any government that can leave fellow white people to die when they are doing something in your interest is completely shameless.

[gsjackson]

Don't forget Reagan. He was clearly meant to die. They had a shooter who was somehow allowed through, but they also had a backup (the explanation for the bullet entering on the opposite side of his body was that it ricocheted off the car door - yeah right). Then the SS supposedly got lost on their way to the hospital. Lol do you suppose the SS would get lost in any major city in the world? But the tough old bastard simply wouldn't die. However, he knew which side his bread was buttered on for the rest of his pretended presidency.

What was their problem with Reagan? There was, admittedly, supposed to be a power struggle during the Reagan administration between neocons (i.e., war-mongering Jews) and paleocons (people like Pat Buchanan and many of the posters here). While Buchanan did become Reagan's head of communication, there was no power struggle at all -- it was a rout; neocons corralled all the money and media influence, while paleocons were banished to go live under a rock somewhere. It's almost as if Reagan did have a shot fired across his bow early on, and chose the side with which he instinctively had less affinity. But on the other hand, he did pull the Marines out of Lebanon, and developed a somewhat less bellicose foreign policy later in his tenure. That couldn't have been pleasing to the war machine.

[gsjackson]

Oh, ok -- Bush, former CIA director. No doubt went to school on LBJ and Kennedy.

[gsjackson]

Just finished The Devil's Chessboard about the CIA of Allen Dulles and their numerous assassinations, including the Kennedy brothers. It's got me convinced. I hadn't realized there was speculation about RFK, and Sirhan Sirhan as victim of CIA mind control, set up, like Lee Harvey Oswald, to be the patsy. The mortal wound came from an angle behind Kennedy from which Sirhan couldn't have fired, and RFK was led into the kitchen by a shady character with CIA connections. Interesting that the CIA was zionized enough at that point to try to make Americans think a Palestinean had committed the murder. Lennon too, huh?

In our various critiques of the U.S. and why it has become such a dismal place, we neglect to mention that at the top of the food chain of power, and in its actions in the world beyond, it is pure evil. No other word will do.

I dont know when the jews took over the USA and all the kikery started. Certainly by the 60s jews were behind all sorts of anti-white movements, even if Nixon hated jews. By the 1970s the CIA was already anti-white and funding black terrorists to kill white people who were once americas allies. SA even fought 2 world wars on the wrong side, on the side of the brits and yanks, but that didnt stop the yanks turning on us. Your uberJew Kissinger was also up to his shenanigans. If you look at what happened in southern africa in the 1970s you will see how CIA was involved in anti-white activities.

In 1975 SA intervened in the Angolan Civil War, for its own survival and representing the anti-communist West in the Cold War conflict. In this war they fought cubans and russian advisors. South Africa was acting in Angola as an agent of American interests.

“The US government urged South Africa, which might otherwise have hesitated, to act,” writes Piero Gleijeses, the preeminent specialist in Cuban and American foreign relations.

P. W. Botha told Parliament:

I know of only one occasion in recent years when we crossed a border and that was in the case of Angola when we did so with the approval and knowledge of the Americans. But they left us in the lurch… . The story must be told of how we, with their knowledge, went in there and operated in Angola with their knowledge, how they encouraged us to act and, when we had nearly reached the climax, we were ruthlessly left in the lurch.

The Director of Operations for the Army Jannie Geldenhuys echoed this line in his memoirs.

“The turning point of the war … was the new law passed by the American Congress forbidding military support to any Angolan Party.”

The National Party’s anti-communism was harder than in any other “Western” country. For example, South Africa eagerly volunteered its air force for the Berlin airlift in 1949 and the Korean War the next year. Its laws covered many more communist political activities and punished them more harshly than parallel legislation elsewhere. For this, they were allies of the USA. SA got involved in angola to prevent a communist regime which would support terrorists on our borders.

By 1975 SADF columns were in Angola and moving northwards fast after the collapse of the portuguese. South Africa’s was not the only covert operation on the ground. The Ford Administration was also supporting SAa, black allies, the FNLA-UNITA anti-communist coalition. The CIA was behind american involvement.

For South Africa, the plan had always been to support the FNLA and UNITA until 11 November, when Portugal had committed to handing over power to whoever was “in control” of Angola. South Africa wanted to help UNITA and the FNLA form a credible alterna­tive to the communists.

records show the yank two faced policy of using fellow white people then throwing them to the wolves:

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BRENT SCOWCROFT: Option B, encouraging South Africa. What does that include specifically?

COLBY: They’d like to get their troops out, and hire mercenaries. They say that they don’t have the money to do this and have turned to us. I think that this is political dynamite. The press would be after us. They and [the] Africans would say that the MPLA is supported by the big, brave Russians, while the others are backed by the bad South Africans and Americans. That would be unpleasant.
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH SISCO: More than that. Your description is too mild. What is in the interests of the South Africans? They have more interest in being there than we do and they don’t need our help. I do not favor giving any support to the South Africans.

When Washington failed to entice other countries to put their forces into Angola in place of the diplomatically toxic apartheid armies, it decided to induce Pretoria to keep its forces in place and prevent an MPLA rout.

This was the context for Kissinger’s carefully crafted response to South Africa’s request for more American military assistance. The response rejected the request for additional American weapons for the coalition, insist­ing that “the FNLA and UNITA have received enough and adequate arms for their defense.” The response also suggested that Washington “shar[ed] the concern of the RSA over the danger of the provocative role of the Russians and the Cubans in Angola” and would “regard the imposition by force of a Soviet/ Cuban/ MPLA regime in Angola with great concern.”

Kissinger’s was a masterclass in dip­lomatic obfuscation. His message invited the recipient — especially one as diplomatically exposed and desperate for Washington’s acceptance, like Pretoria — to perceive an expression of solidarity between the two countries. But it also carefully avoided anything that could be identified as either a positive American response to Armstrong’s request or an appeal for an additional South African commitment.

Vorster was duly confused. How could Washington be simulta­neously alarmed at communist bloc success in sub-Saharan Africa, which from its perspective was a major issue for the “free world,” but not be prepared to contribute the resources to roll back the incoming forces?

Washington continued to string the South Africans along into December, even as the military situation deteriorated. For instance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ed Mulcahy told South African embassy diplomats in Washington that around US$25 million had thus far been spent by the United States in support of the FNLA and UNITA and “that [the] United States would continue along these lines as long as it felt necessary.” Like Kissinger’s opaque response to South Africa’s request for more arms, Mulcahy’s message was carefully crafted to hit the emotional buttons of the isolated South African government without making unequivocal commitments. It gave the appearance that Washington would stay the course, when it was in fact looking resolutely for the exit.

the US Senate passed the Tunney Amendment by the margin of 54 votes to 22 — hardly a close vote — preventing the Ford Administration from contributing further funds to the anti­communist coalition.

South Africa had been left high and dry, its troops exposed in Angola, and its diplomats in the firing line on the global stage. But that Pretoria was caught unawares by Congress’s cessation of funding and the American failure to provide more tangible support to the anticommunist coalition is at least as much an indictment of Vorster’s mishandling of the entire enterprise as it is of Kissinger’s shameless realpolitik.

Note how that kike farked over the white man in africa,

Even as South African troops withdrew from Angola in early 1976, the belief quickly took root that the SADF would have routed the Cuban-backed MPLA if the US Congress had not betrayed America’s commitments to stand shoulder to shoulder with the South Africans.

Certainly, Washington supported the involvement of the armies of the apartheid regime in a power struggle in independent Africa, encouraged feelings of solidarity in Pretoria, and then left South Africa bearing the military and diplomatic cost of the joint effort. Reflecting on events in January 1976, Kissinger told his inner circle: “We didn’t encour­age them to go into Angola, but we certainly— they did the only fighting that was going on there for a while.”

What they said In Sa

“It is already well known how President Ford and Dr. Kissinger’s efforts to lend help … were thwarted by the US Congress…. The West is how­ever currently too wishy washy [pap en slap] to expect any help from.”

The Ford Administration was in a bind. In public, it rejected the notion that it had collaborated with South Africa. At the height of the diplomatic furor over South Africa’s intervention, Ford instructed his African embassies to tell their hosts: “The US in no way sought or encouraged the South Africans to become involved in Angola nor was our advice sought.” (Though delicately worded, this was not true.)

But with the MPLA victorious and thousands of Cuban troops in Angola, the United States realised it desperately had to prevent the emergence of a full-blown Cold War conflict in Southern Africa in which its de facto allies would be the racist white settler regimes. The Ford Administration reversed course and suddenly resolved to advocate for majority rule in Southern Africa. But it needed South Africa’s help to bring pressure on white regimes in Rhodesia and South-West Africa to give up power peacefully.

After this sorry american involvement, SA had to fight on on its own, against cuba and russia, and sanctions imposed on it by its false allies, the UK and USA. The CIA and the uberJew blatantly encouraged SA to go down a road in the best interests of the west. Once committed, they left the south africans in the lurch and promptly changed sides and mounted a campaign against SA. In what way did this serve the USA? It may have served Israel as SA had to turn to israel for arms in a very bad deal where they got our uranium. Once they got the uranium and research facilities they wanted, the kikes promptly turned on SA as well and imposed sanctions, using apartheid as an excuse. Apartheid didnt bother them before when they wanted Uranium, nor did their own apartheid offend them. What chutzpah.

As a result, it is clear that listening to the jew is like clutching a viper to your chest. Trusting america as an allie is almost as dangerous as trusting the Italians. This is not to say americans are like that; just that their government is not to be trusted. Any government that can leave fellow white people to die when they are doing something in your interest is completely shameless.

Kissinger will soon take his place in the inner circle of hell, joined shortly before or after by George Soros. Both welcomed by David Rockefeller. Guess it's too much to hope that the passage of these war criminals will change anything.

[Kradmelder]

For sure. The actions of kissinger and Congress left SA embroiled alone in the Angolan war against Cuban troops and unlimited Russian equipment for another 15 years. 1000s of young white men and 100s of 1000s of black men died because America reneged on not having the communist MPla take power. Angola became poverty stricken. Limited manpower meant the huge border could only be manned by 20 000 troops as SA had many other borders and an internal terrorist war. That means no ground could be held and only hit and run mobile operations mounted.

Reagan at least tried to veto sanctions and allow aid to go to the south Africans but he was vetoed by Congress. Reagan was one man to wanted to do the right thing.thatcher as well.

In response SA had to develop their own arms industry, make their own oil from coal, and severely ration civilian fuel to supply the army. Many other young white men died because SA could not risk irreplaceable helicopters in angola for casevac when Russian and Cuban migs and SAMs were car more advanced than anything sa had. Air superiority had to be conceded and a hit and run mobile bush war fought.

These actions are why PW Botha later told the yanks to butt out of our business. No trust could be placed in them at all.

[Winston]

I like George Harrison's hit song "My Sweet Lord". I think it was his best one.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI[/youtube]

[gsjackson]

I like George Harrison's hit song "My Sweet Lord". I think it was his best one.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI[/youtube]

Not his, according to a court of law. It infringed the copyright of He's So Fine, a 1963 hit for the Chiffons, and Harrison had to pony up big bucks.

[droid]

Kissinger will soon take his place in the inner circle of hell, joined shortly before or after by George Soros. Both welcomed by David Rockefeller. Guess it's too much to hope that the passage of these war criminals will change anything.

Not gonna happen, they both are disputing the title of "the eternal jew"

[Winston]

I like George Harrison's hit song "My Sweet Lord". I think it was his best one.

Not his, according to a court of law. It infringed the copyright of He's So Fine, a 1963 hit for the Chiffons, and Harrison had to pony up big bucks.

You mean this one? But it doesn't sound the same. How did the courts determine that it's the same song? Just because the melody is similar? Lots of songs have similar melodies though.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinz9Avvq6A[/youtube]

[Winston]

Here's another great song by George Harrison called "Something". It's a real classic that will make you feel nostalgic.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Dw6Pel424[/youtube]

Also this one is a great feel good classic oldie too "Here Comes the Sun".

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNS_SUmCJm4[/youtube]

[Winston]

Audio clips of My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine mixed together to demonstrate the similarities between the two songs...new and improved over my first rendering of this musical juxtaposition.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYiEesMbe2I[/youtube]