- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
The Dark Patriot
There is a bit of darkness behind a pledge of allegiance in these United States. Developed by a few men. It was the amalgamation of religion and leftism. And it has stood the test of time.
A Christian-Socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance for America in 1892, more than 100 years after the founding of the United States. Somehow the often disagreeable collection of States got along without a pledge.
Why? Did the founders know of dangers behind oath taking? Did they want men to recite or reason?
The early States did not want automatons who could cite oaths, pledge loyalties to their masters or necessarily, bend a knee and grovel at the feet of the Almighty. They wanted self-reliant men and women who could build a nation of free individuals. Prayer was not required, but work was. Taking another man's bread was often met with jail, but today, welfare (the dole) is commonplace.
Francis Bellamy, born in 1855, in New York, to this day, a hotbed of leftist thought, with the exception of California and Washington State, derived his 'pledge of allegiance' from his own ideas of “Christian-Socialism.”
Bellamy was a Baptist Minister and pulled quotes directly from the bible to support his leanings. Jesus of Nazareth was his brother-in-socialism, his learned son-of-god in arms, and his eternal comrade.
His sermons were littered with socialist references. So much so, that he eventually lost many of his supporters. But his fraternal ideas live on.
“Christian Socialism” is a form of “Religious Socialism.” It follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, in the strictest sense of his doctrines. Capitalism and free trade are considered a form of greed, by the Christian Socialist.
According to Bellamy and of course to his Christ, socialism was the moral goal. The Old Testament is full of such references which speak for the poor, against the love of money, and that one should even take pleasure in the “toil.”
Does this make the “pledge” itself a socialist tool or is it simply a religious reflection?
The original “Bellamy” pledge:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
God came late
On its face, the Bellamy Pledge appears patriotic.
“Justice for all.” Who does not want that?
You will notice that “God” was not yet formally introduced. Perhaps He was busy at the time.
You will also notice the word “nation.”
Given the following information, the word "nation" seems to be purposeful and yet innocuous. A way to mislead? Because it is never really about the nation, but the “cause” of the nation. Of its individuals.
What is the “root” reason a people bind themselves to a “cause?”
Whereas the word “nation” can mean anything, the idea of “cause” is to the point.
Bellamy indicated that “Flag” was synonymous with “nation” and to him nation meant nationalizing. It meant a fraternity. It did not mean a Constitutional Republic. He said as much.
The fact that the United States was founded not as a nation, but as a collection of States did not enter into it, for Bellamy.
The idea of a nation, not United States, being indivisible, begs another question. Who says? Tell that to Texas. Indivisible means that States have not the right, should they feel dogged by over-reaching Federal Government, to go their own way.
In our deepest of hearts, many of us never want to lose a State, but how can a collection of States morally bind to one another, without a voluntary contract? That contract being the Constitution? They cannot.
But is it indivisible only in spirit? That would be the weasel's way out.
To Bellamy, indivisible meant just that. No right to divide. No right to argue. No right to liberty.
Author and Baptist
Francis Bellamy was not only a Baptist, when he created the pledge, but an author in his own right.
When he devised the pledge he was working for magazine called The Youth's Companion. (Not the Hitler Youth. But there are comparisons.) The magazine was changing at the time, focusing more on adult readers, and on September 8, 1892, the very first copy of the pledge was published.
The Youth's Companion
It appears that the 'pledge' idea did not originate from a patriotic source, specifically.
The Youth's Companion was attempting to increase the number of subscribers at the time. Daniel Ford, the editor, was closely involved with supporting Francis Bellamy and attended his church. They then hit upon the idea of selling American Flags to every public schoolhouse in the nation.
It was a germ of an idea probably realized after watching the military and how they sported the U.S.Flag in proud tradition. It was not necessarily a quasi-militant approach to patriotism. It was, on the other hand, a 'germ' in the sense that it placed the soft words of socialism, hoping to spread the leftism gradually.
It was also a “sell the sizzle” idea. If the public (government) school bought a flag, they also received a subscription to the magazine. But after selling about 26,000 flags, the market started to cool off. A new sales pitch was required.
Pledge of Allegiance
Enter Francis Bellamy and the “Pledge of Allegiance.”
It was the 400th Anniversary of Columbus. What great timing. The magazine decided to push for a national Columbus Day “Public School” celebration at the same time. After all, the school system was their target customer. Better yet, there was something else going on then. Something special. It was the “World's Colombian Exposition.” Better known as “The Chicago World's Fair.”
What luck. It was a “two-fer.”
The Push for Adoption
Bellamy was then instrumental in getting the public school systems to adopt his pledge. He spent time speaking at a national school superintendent's meeting and eventually the National Association of Educators agreed with the pledge plan.
All of this effort was timed for the celebrations to come.
What was the motive behind Bellamy's pledge, other than to promote the magazine he worked for?
Nationalization of certain organizations, such as the school system; but also to prevent privatization. To prevent free and fair trade.
It is interesting that Bellamy was ousted or “resigned” from the pulpit because he often described Jesus as a “socialist.” That bothered people, but Bellamy wasn't lying. He was just quoting the early Socialist of Nazareth. But some people can't take the truth. It just plain hurts too much.
Francis Bellamy was not the only socialist in his family either. He had a brother named Edward. Edward Bellamy was a then famous leader in America's “Nationalist Movement.” Edward wanted to nationalize, which meant to have government confiscate, not only the school system, but the entire economy.
This was not much different than what Adolf Hitler did in Germany several decades later. One wonders if the Bellamy brothers influenced Adolf. Some say it is a fact; Hitler was a fan.
Francis Bellamy also wrote about racism. He supported it.
He mentioned the “inferior races” and spoke against certain types of immigrants who were essentially, according to Bellamy, of low intelligence and should not be allowed to “corrupt the [American] stock.” Yes, there are many parallels between Bellamy and Adolf Hitler; however. Bellamy was also a product of his times. Times when the Aryan or White Race was thought to be superior to all others. A precursor to Hitler and a very ancient idea.
Remember, this was the guy who penned the pledge – at least the first one.
Was it just “the times” or was Bellamy advocating the initiation of force against the population as whole, in order to achieve his brotherly goals? Was Bellamy a supporter of selective immigration or "Social Engineering?" Something more sinister?
Later, Adolf Hitler also voiced similar opinions about certain races. Only, he acted on his racism in a decisive manner.
On the bright side, Francis Bellamy did not believe in Universal Suffrage – where “every man is a lawmaker.” But was Bellamy's heart in the right place?
If you were a dumb immigrant in Bellamy's world, you might not have the right to vote. With some exceptions, many of us might agree that voting restrictions should be applied, but not for the same reasons.
After all, if one is on the public dole or works for government office, taxpayers – those who actually work for a living, pay the bills of those on the dole. They are the ultimate stakeholders, the actual “bill payers.” Who then should have the opportunity to vote?
Every man is not a lawmaker, only a voter. As such, a voter must not be a able cast a vote in favor of higher taxation, for example, if he takes his bread from others. That's just common sense.
But to Bellamy, such restricted suffrage, based upon stakeholders' rights would be anti-Christian-Socialist. Of course one could confiscate. That is what socialism prides itself upon, Bellamy would agree.
Daniel Ford, his publisher, had Francis Bellamy work closely with Daniel Upham, a devote patriot, to say the least. Upham attempted to write the pledge himself, but passed the duty onto Bellamy. Both had input, however.
Words were carefully chosen. Instead of “salute to the flag” they chose the word “pledge.” A salute is a form of respect, but not necessarily subservience. A pledge can be considered a solemn vow...of obedience. If one pledges one's allegiance to a “flag and the Republic for which it stands” where is one's true pledge? The flag? The Republic? Both?
Let us see what Bellamy had in mind.
Not a Republic
The answer can be found in the "nationalize" aspect of Bellamy's philosophy. “One Nation” as in one “Fraternity.” That was Bellamy's belief. Not a Republic, but a Nation. The kind of nation Bellamy envisioned, however, was one which was at least partially “nationalized”, i.e., socialized. Think on that when you pledge – if you pledge.
Bellamy also wanted to add “equality” to the 'pledge.' In his mind, given his leftist leanings, that could only have meant that everyone should be equal, not just in the eyes of the law, but economically. It meant subservience. It meant high taxes. It meant mandatory, not voluntary, caring for the poor. It meant socialism, by force.
Some refer the the above as 'leveling.'
It is also curious that the right handed salute offered to the “flag” during the pledge was a stiff right-armed extension, very similar to the old Nazi salute. That practice ended shortly after World War II.
It is also telling how Bellamy worked the “youth” angle, via the school system, just like the Nazi's did several decades later. Garnering the ranks of the youth has always been an effective method of bringing about social change. Their minds are easier to mold. Once molded, more difficult un-mold.
In 1942 the pledge had been formally adopted by Congress, but by 1954, “Under God” was added.
Thankfully, and I say this with deep sarcasm, the United States Supreme Court ruled that students could not be compelled to recite the pledge.
Now, a student can stand or sit and not recite; and be labeled “UN-American” and an atheist to boot. Sometimes the students are removed from class, arrested or simply ostracized for practicing their rights. Afterwards, it's all cleared up, but it's kind of late then. The damage has already been done.
Knowing this, what do most students do? Bow. There are some, however, who refuse to submit their minds for appropriate molding. I call these students the “true patriots.” Their 'cause' is the freedom to think. Their cause is not their nation, not necessarily any God, but these United States. Alas, these free-thinkers are losing by default.
Knights of Columbus
In any event, after all was said and done, the Knights of Columbus, the right arm of the Pope or certainly staunch supporters of the Vatican, pushed for the “Under God” addition in the 'pledge.'
It passed Congress.
Today, the Catholic Fraternal Service Organization is the largest of its kind, but was originally an insurance organization.
Money and power got you “God,” whether you liked or not.
Bellamy, got you the soft words of socialism. He set the stage.
Note: I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I have problems with his religious leanings and his libertarian views, which are not in line with an objective form of government. Libertarians have no cohesive viewpoint. They are all over the place, when it comes to how a government should work. However, that aside, some of Paul's leanings are informative; hence this video was included.
Note: this second video gives you a bit more information about the pledge.