Bernie Sanders’ Supporters Use Beatles’ “Revolution” Song that Doesn’t Mean What They Think It Means

You have to feel sorry for Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Hillary Clinton used dirty tricks to keep him from scuttling her presidential bid. To make matters worse, they ended up with Donald Trump, their most detested presidential candidate ever. Then we find out that the Virginia shooter who was trying to kill Republicans was a Bernie Supporter.

Most of Bernie’s supporters are ignorant. Sanders is a millionaire, his wife is being investigated for financial shenanigans, and he’s a religious bigot who rejects the Constitution he took an oath to uphold. This says nothing of his terrible political (Marxist) philosophy.

Even so, they are dreaming the impossible dream that he will ascend to the political Olympus to become the next President of the United States. They are rallying for their political god with more of their ignorance and naiveté showing:

There was a large rally on Saturday night for the pie-in-the-sky set of the American public who long for government interference in every aspect of their life and increased taxes on anyone but themselves.

“The People’s Summit” held in Chicago on Saturday night apparently kicked off with The Beatles’ song “Revolution.” A laughable idea to anyone who knows how to read or listen to lyrics. (Red State)

“Revolution” is not what they think it is. It’s a song expressing skepticism about changing society via revolution! Here are some of the lyrics:

But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out.

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

To add insult to injury to the Bernie crowd, it turns out that John Lennon was not the revolutionary many people believed him to be, at least not in his later years. First, he was super rich. Second, he liked Ronald Reagan. Third, he was not an atheist, contrary to his contradictory song “Imagine.”

We’ve come to learn that John Lennon was embarrassed by his early political and social radicalism. Fred Seaman, who worked with Lennon from 1979 until his death on December 8, 1980, claims that the music legend “was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.” Seaman continued:

“I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative… but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

“He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naiveté.”

In a series of interviews published after his death, “[t]he man who famously called for imagining a world with ‘No religion’ also jettisoned his anti-theism,” Jordan Michael Smith of The American Conservative writes“‘People got the image I was anti-Christ or antireligion,’ he said. ‘I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist.’”

Not only did Lennon reject atheism, he also rejected forms of evolution. He instinctively knew that there was something special about humans and different about the animal world even if he did not know how the theory of evolution is argued:

“Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way,” he insisted. “That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn’t havecome from anything — fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage. It’s absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists. That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the apes standing up suddenly.”

What happened to Lennon? Why did his views change? He grew up. He matured. He was willing to look reality in the face without blinking and say, I was wrong. The man who imagined a world with “no religion” and “no possessions” left an estate of more than $275 million, “not bad for one who referred to himself as an ‘instinctive socialist,’ for one who believed in the abolition of ‘all money, police, and government.’”1

Lennon’s early flirtation with socialism was temporary. Maybe he was persuaded by the lyrics from fellow-Beatle George Harrison’s song “Taxman.” “The Beatles’ large earnings placed them in the top tax bracket in the United Kingdom, liable to a 95% supertax introduced by Harold Wilson’s Labour government (hence the lyrics ‘There’s one for you, nineteen for me’).”

Lennon knew that sending money to poor nations was counter-productive.

“When it was pointed out that a Beatles reunion could possibly raise $200 million for a poverty-stricken country in South America, Lennon had no time for it. ‘You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles.’”

It’s time that atheists and liberals follow Lennon’s lead and grow up. Atheism and socialism are literal dead ends. They are destroyers of people and societies. If there is no God, then Lennon’s death at the hands of Mark David Chapman was the result of the survival of the fittest, the fittest being Chapman. Atheism is like setting one’s sails “for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”2

  1. David A. Noebel, The Legacy of John Lennon: Charming or Harming a Generation? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 11. []
  2. R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171. []
Previous post

Liberal NY Times best-selling author understands Christianity better than Christians do

Next post

Should the Democrat Party be Listed as a 'Hate Group'?