➡ Ron Partain of the Untold History Channel expresses his love for his country and his concerns about the Pledge of Allegiance. He ponders if the pledge which is supposed to symbolize honoring the country might have been used as a means to subtly promote a socialistic mentality, based on insights from Thomas De Lorenzo’s works and the historical context of its creation.
➡ The extensive text discusses the original meaning and intentions behind the American Pledge of Allegiance. It was created during the United States’ Civil war, to affirm the unity and indivisibility of the nation. According to the source, the authorship belongs to Francis Bellamy, a supporter of socialism, and the intent was fostering loyalty to the state. The Pledge was aimed to counterbalance the individualism and love of liberty intrinsic to American culture, advocating for more equality. The text also draws parallels between the idea of pledging allegiance to the state and tyrannical state practices. The reference to one nation indivisible was particularly significant, as legitimizing secession would undermine hopes of achieving a socialist utopia through a consolidated government. The text also criticizes the Pledge as it sees it as a tool for teaching obedience to an omnipotent state rather than upholding the principles of the American Founding Fathers. Furthermore, it delves into a potential symbolism depicting the state as divine, which it views as deeply un-American based on the principles of Founding Fathers who fought against an oppressive state (British Empire) seeking independence.
➡ The text discusses the philosophies of government’s role in society, the evolution of the American government, the Pledge of Allegiance’s history, and the influence of socialism and statism. It underlines the importance of the Constitution in preserving the republic and critiques the use of public education for indoctrination, referring to figures like Edward Bellamy and John Dewey.
➡ The text outlines the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S., created by Francis Bellamy with the intent of promoting socialist ideas and a centralized government, contrary to the federalist system of the Founding Fathers. This philosophy is traced through the modern times, simulating an increase in positive attitudes towards socialism, particularly in the light of economic crises like the 2008 recession and the coronavirus pandemic, despite traditional American aversion to the term socialism.
➡ The article outlines data showing American support for four progressive policies considered socialist, like single-payer insurance and guaranteed jobs, is higher than support for socialism itself. It also indicates a generational divide, with younger generations more favorable towards both socialist policies and the term ‘socialism’, compared to older Americans. Apparently, millennials and Gen Z show strong support for socialism contrary to the popular belief about Gen Z being more conservative. A numerical breakdown of supporters according to their preferences in the upcoming election is also discussed, with Biden supporters most likely to favor socialist policies.
➡ The speaker discusses a varied range of topics, from controversial theories regarding concentration camp deaths to different books, plans for future discussions, and Q&A with chat participants. The speaker is also planning on uploading new documentaries and hosting several events in the coming days.

To the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron Partain. God. It’s being a little bit of a habit two days in a row where I’m late this time. I’m, like, way late. Sorry, guys. Just something happened right at the end. Right as I was about ready to go live, I had to deal with a cat situation, and it took a little bit extra time that was just totally unforeseen, but, go, I was ready, but unfortunately, I couldn’t be here on time.

So anyway, I apologize for that. Hello, yarn addict. I guess it would be yarn addict. So I guess there’s a few things that you could be addicted to that are worse than yarn. But welcome, yarn. It’s nice to have you here. And I see there’s a few people are starting to come in tonight. I’m going to be doing something on the Pledge of Allegiance. Obviously, I probably am.

How do I say this? If anybody questions my patriotism or my love of country, it’s something that I take very personal. I absolutely love my country. I served my country. I served in the Navy. I am very loyal to my country. I would die from my country. But there are traditions that have been handed down from time from year after year, things that are handed down to us, and we just accept them as the way they are, and we celebrate them because that’s what we’ve been taught to do.

That, hey, the Pledge of Allegiance is a good thing. It’s like we’re honoring our country, right? What if that’s not the truth? What if that wasn’t the original meaning of that? What if the Pledge of Allegiance and I’m just prognosticating here, but what if the Pledge of Allegiance was another just kind of a little psychological chink or just a psychological trick to play on us to make us more subconsciously willing to accept socialistic a socialistic mentality within the country? I’ve said the Pledge of Allegiance 100 times.

A lot of you guys may or may not know this about me, but I did gun shows for a long time, and I still do from time to time. It’s just not something that I do. I don’t sell weapons. I would sell things that might be firearms related or T shirts or whatever things that you would find at a gun show, but not necessarily firearms. I never had any desire to have an NFL or doing any of that.

That never appealed to me. But I always loved going to gun shows. And one of the things that they did at the gun show every Saturday morning was they would do the Pledge of Allegiance. They’d stop everybody, and we’d do the Pledge of Allegiance. And as soon as everybody was done doing the Pledge of Allegiance, everybody would raise this big roar of approval. Yay. It’s like we’ve done something patriotic.

I was one of them. Even today, there’s a part of me that actually still is fond of the Pledge of Allegiance because of what it is or, you know, it’s like showing loyalty to the country and devotion to the country and whatnot. But I’m a big fan of an author named Thomas De Lorenzo. He’s done some exceptional work out there and I don’t even remember how it got to me this morning.

I was doing something and I stumbled on something that he had done. In fact, let me see if I can find it. It was a photograph that I stumbled on this morning. You know what? I’m not even going to go trying to look at it, so I’m not even going to do that. But it was a photograph of a passage from the book The Real Lincoln. And it got me thinking.

I’m like, you know what? Because I was trying to think about something to do for a show and I was like, oh, that’s a great idea, something to do tonight. I did a search on for the Pledge of Allegiance. God, I can’t even talk tonight. And it gave me some really interesting material and I listened to four or five different articles and some of them were very redundant short, and I narrowed it down to two.

Actually. There was a third one that I wanted to do, but for some OD reason I couldn’t get Medium to accept my I couldn’t get the Medium account to go on. So anyway, I couldn’t get access to the article, so I was only able to get like the first 30 seconds of it and I wanted to get more of it, but anyway but I’m going to read a couple of articles here and I’ve got them in the order that I want them to.

Here, let me share this screen here. Share this is, this is Thomas De Lorenzo and this article that he wrote is from 2003, pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Linconian State. And he’s not a fan of Abraham Lincoln at all. The book that he wrote, The Real Lincoln, was very eye opening, to say the least. Anyway, I am going to jump in here. We’re going to read this and I think you guys are going to be probably blown away by some of this.

Let’s jump in here, shall we? All right. Pledging allegiance to the omnipotent Linconian state by Thomas de Lorenzo. This is October 17 of 2003. The US. Supreme Court’s recent decision to review the constitutionality of the Under God Wording in the Pledge of Allegiance provides an occasion to educate Americans about the ideological purposes of the Pledge. A good place to start would be John Baer’s book, the Pledge of Allegiance a Centennial History, 1892 to 1992.

Free State Press, 1992. In it, one would learn that the author of the Pledge was one Francis Bellamy, a defrocked Baptist minister from Boston who identified himself as a Christian socialist and who preached in his pulpit that Jesus was a socialist. Bellamy was the cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the extremely popular 1888 socialist fantasy, Looking Backward. In this novel, the main character, Julian West, falls asleep in 1887 and awakens in the year 2000 when the socialist utopia had been achieved.

All industry is state owned, Soviet style. Everyone is an employee of the state who is conscripted at age 21 and retires at age 45, and all workers earn the same income. Francis Bellamy said that one purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance was to help accomplish his lifelong goal of making his cousin’s socialist fantasy a reality in America. He further stated that the true reason for the allegiance to the flag was to indoctrinate American schoolchildren and the false history of the American founding that was espoused first by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham lincoln falsely claimed lincoln falsely claimed that the states were never sovereign and that the Union created the states, not the other way around.

But as Joe Sobrandt had remarked, the notion that the Union is older than the states makes as much sense as the idea that a marriage can be older than either spouse. It is impossible for a union of two things to be older than either of the things that they are union of. The truth is that in all of the American founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, the states refer to themselves as free and independent.

The Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War was a treaty with the individual free and independent states, not the whole people of the United States. 1 second here, Debbie, I have a little furry, furry creature at my feet. See here. The citizens of the States understood that they were sovereign over the federal government, not the other way around. As Lincoln absurdly claimed, the sovereign states delegated a few enumerated powers to the central government as their agent, while maintaining sovereignty for themselves.

Despite Lincoln’s efforts to destroy the system of federalism and states rights that was championed by Jefferson and other Founders by waging total war on the south, many Americans still believed in the Jeffersonian states rights ideal as of the 1880s. Despite all the death and destruction of the war and several subsequent decades of Linconian propaganda about the alleged evils of states rights, many Americans still viewed federalism and states rights as a safeguard against federal tyranny, just as the American Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, had done.

Francis Bellamy was alarmed by this, for he understood perfectly well that the first step along the way to his socialist utopia was a consolidated or unitary state, just like the one Bismarck had created in Germany through blood and iron and the one Abraham Lincoln championed in the United States. Monopoly government, in other words, was necessary first step on the road to socialism. I’m going to read that again, because I think I butchered that here.

Just like the one Bismarck had created in Germany through blood and iron and the one Abraham Lincoln championed in the United States. Monopoly government, in other words, was necessary first step on the road to socialism. That just doesn’t sound right to me. Anyway, I’m just going to continue on. All semblances of the Jeffersonian philosophy of Federalism and states rights must be destroyed. In Bellamy’s own words, the true reason for allegiance to the flag is the Republic for which it stands.

And what does that vast thing and what does that vast thing, the Republic, mean? It is the concise political word for the nation, the one nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that one nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible. As Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. See John W bair, the Pledge of Allegiance to Short History.

Bellamy considered the liberty and justice for all phrase in the Pledge to be an Americanized version of the slogan of the French Revolution liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The French Revolutionaries believed that mass killing by the state was always justified if it was done for the grand purpose of achieving equality. In an 1876 commencement speech, Francis Bellamy praised the French Revolution as the poetry of human brotherhood. And what we call the Civil War, donald Livingston has remarked, was in fact America’s French revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobian president.

Donald Livingston, the Litmus Test for American Conservatism Chronicles and Chronicles, January 2001. Bellamy intended the Pledge of allegiance to be a vow of allegiance to the state. A quintessential, unamerican idea. He stated that he got the idea from the loyalty oaths that were imposed on Southerners during Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states and afterward during Reconstruction. During the war, adult male civilians in the south were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the Federal government or be shot.

During Reconstruction, almost all Southern white adult males were disenfranchised by the requirement that in order to vote or hold political office, they must take the oath, or the following oath i, underscore, do solemnly swear or affirm that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof. That I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility.

Thereto that’s bear. Pledge of Allegiance chapter Four few, if any, Southern men would dare to take this public pledge in the postwar years. Francis Bellamy first published the Pledge of Allegiance in September 1892 issue of The Youth’s Companion, which had been described as the Reader’s Digest of its day. By that time, Bellamy had been forced to leave his Boston pulpit because his practice of preaching socialism rather than the Gospel.

In addition to his work at the magazine, Francis Bellamy was the Vice President in charge of education for the Society of Christian Socialists, a national organization that advocated income taxation, central banking, nationalized education, nationalization of industry, and other features of socialism. In his classic book socialism. Page 223. Ludwig von Vistas characterized Christian socialism as merely a variety of state socialism. Its advocates, like Bellamy Cousins, held that agriculture and handcraft with perhaps small shopkeeping are the only admissible occupations.

Trade and speculation are superfluous injurious, and evil factories and large scale industries are a wicked invention of the Jewish spirit. They produce only bad goods which are foisted on buyers by the large stores and by other monstrosities of modern trade to the detriment of purchasers. The Bellamy Cousins decided that American youth needed to be taught loyalty to the state because they realized that the individualism and the love of liberty of the American Founding Fathers would always stand in the way of achieving the socialist utopia that was described in Looking Backward.

America supposedly suffered from too much liberty and not enough equality, said the author of the Pledge of Allegiance. The one notion indivisible wording was especially important to the Bellamy Cousins, for if secession were legitimized their pipe dream of socialism through a consolidated monopoly, government would be destroyed. This was the thinking of all the worst tyrants of the 20th century, including Hitler and Stalin. Hitler even quoted approvingly lincoln’s Union created the states theory from the first inaugural address in Meinkamp in order to make his own case for destroying federalism and states’rights in Germany, the public schools must be used to teach blind obedience to the state.

The Bellamies responded or reasoned, and the National Education Association was pleased. To help them accomplish this goal. They planned a national public school celebration in 1892, which was the first national propaganda campaign on behalf of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a massive campaign that involved government schools and politicians throughout the country. The government schools were promoted along with the Pledge, while private schools, especially parochial ones, were criticized.

Students were taught to recite the Pledge with their arms outstretched, palms up, similar to how Roman citizens were required to hail Caesar and not too different from the way in which Nazi soldiers saluted their furor. This was the custom in American public schools from the turn of the 20th century until around 1950, when it was apparently decided by public schools officials that the Nazi like salute was in bad taste.

And I actually found this picture that I wanted to share here’s. So this is that is a picture of American students in their classroom giving the Pledge of Allegiance. That’s how they saluted the flag up until 1950. Have you ever been taught that’s just leaving it there for just to let it sink in? The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of allegiance to the omnipotent Linconian State. Its purpose was never to inculcate in children the ideals of the American Founding Fathers, but those of two eccentric 19th century socialists.

Not surprisingly, among its staunchest contemporary defenders and promoters are the Straussian, neocon Lincoln idolaters at the Claremont Institute. If the Supreme Court decides that the undergod wording in the Pledge is unconstitutional. It will be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. It does not establish a religion. The Pledge itself is an oath of allegiance to the central state, and the under god language only serves to deify the state.

From the perspective of a Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or James Madison. Nothing could be more UN American. After all, they and their contemporaries had fought a long and bloody war of secession to sever their forced allegiance, complete with loyalty oaths, to another overbearing and tyrannical state, namely the British Empire. So that is the article from Thomas de Lorenzo thought that was really interesting. Then the second article is the pledge versus the oath.

The Socialists knew what they were doing when they created America’s Pledge of Allegiance. And this is from Tuesday, May 1 of 2001, by James Peron. And there may be a little bit of overlap here, but bear with me here. When George W. Bush became president last January, he struck a familiar pose. Raising his right hand before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath serves to remind us that the United States is a constitutional republic with a federal system. The oath also reminds us that the Constitution is the cornerstone of the American system. The government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution. As such, government is not omnipotent, but strictly limited to the functions and purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Legislation, regardless of how popular, is supposed to be consistent with it.

And any laws that conflict it or conflict with it are invalid. Behind the Constitution are specific principles that the American Founding Fathers consciously held and promoted. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is, for all practical purposes, the birth certificate of the United States. In it, Jefferson outlined the principles of the Founders. These principles have a long and honorable history. See my article, the Declaration of Independence. Actually, we may even go, because this is going to be over pretty quick.

So I may go and do this. In fact, here, let me mark this so I can find it. But the Founders realized that it was impractical and unnecessary to expect the American people to understand that history and philosophy, the Declaration and Constitution, were all that Americans needed to understand. If the people were loyal to the Constitution, the Republic was safe. Of course, there have been individuals who were opposed to the Founder’s philosophy and opposed to a constitutional Republic with limited powers.

Almost from the beginning, there were individuals who promoted a government of unlimited powers. They wanted the people to express their loyalty, not to the Constitution, but to the state. The differences between the two ideologies is striking. If one swears an oath to the Constitution, it implies limited government by definition. It also implies that individual rights are paramount in the American system of governance. But when one swears to support the government, instead of the constitution, those principles disappear.

Imagine if our elected officials, instead of swearing to uphold the constitution, simply swore to support the government. At this point, nothing the government does could be consistently challenged. There would be no limitations on the state or its functions. Individual rights would be nonexistent. The entire philosophy of the founders would be turned inside out. If one supports the constitution, then individual rights are the foundation on which the enumerated powers of the government are based.

If one instead swears allegiance to the government, then it is the foundation on which specific enumerated rights are granted. The first system supports a concept of natural rights that reside in the individual. The second is one of legal positivism which says that rights are whatever the state grants. The founders wanted a government where the rights of the people come first. The function of the government is simply to protect those preexisting rights.

Statism argues just the opposite. For the statist, the government comes first, and the rights are privileges granted at the whim of the state. These two philosophies could not be further apart. If we were to place in order the structure of the American system, it would be the people and their natural rights. Individuals are endowed with certain rights that are theirs by nature. These include the rights to life, liberty, and justly acquired property.

The Declaration of Independence. This manifesto set out the basic beliefs of American founding fathers regarding rights and the nature of government. The Constitution of the United States. This document, based on the principles clearly enunciated in the Declaration, established the method of proper government. It was not intended to explain the philosophy of government, but only outline how it should operate. Powers were strictly enumerated, while rights were not. The republic.

The end result of all of this would be the American Republic itself. The president elect and our elected officials do not swear an oath to the republic, but to the Constitution. The Constitution is the cause, the republic the effect. If the constitution is ignored, then the republic is lost. Support for the republic that does not include fidelity to the constitution leads to a loss of both the process and the outcome.

The Pledge of Allegiance why is it, then, that so many American schoolchildren are required to swear allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, rather than the constitution? Millions of children start each school day with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Wouldn’t we be much safer as a republic if the children learned to respect the constitution? If we were to replace the flag in the hierarchy above, it would follow the republic. The flag is a symbol of the republic. It seems OD to pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic while ignoring both the Declaration and the Constitution. To understand why this reversal took place, we need to look at the history of the Pledge of Allegiance itself.

Most of us grew up with the Pledge, and we probably assumed that it was always part of the American culture. But that’s not true. Even the current version is relatively new. The phrase under God was not in the original version. It was added only in 1954. The Pledge itself doesn’t go back farther than the 1890s. It’s a child of the socialist progressive movement. It was during the late 18 hundreds that, for the first time widespread advocacy of socialism and statism became popular in the United States.

Numerous authors wrote novels promoting these doctrines. Among those novels were Ignatius Donnelly, Caesar’s column, and Edward Bellamy’s looking backward. Bellamy wrote of a futuristic America where socialism reigned. In its first year of publication in 1888, the book sold 100,000 copies and eventually topped a million in print. It was translated into 20 languages as a work of American fiction. It was surpassed in the 19th century only by Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Her.

John Dewey in fact actually, I wanted to show this. This is the official versions of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 1892 to 1923 I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And then 1923 to 24 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1924 to 54 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And then the present from 1954 on, they added one nation under God. So those are the changes of the hold on a second. Here I am being surrounded by felines. Let’s see here john Dewey, the great advocate of government schooling and a socialist, called Bellamy his great American prophet and said what Uncle Tom’s Cabin was to the anti slavery movement.

Bellamy’s book may well be to the shaping of popular opinion for a new social order. In fact, Dewey took many of his socialist ideas for education and indoctrination from Bellamy. Historian John Baer said that Dewey was ready to advocate Edward Bellamy’s type of education and to reform American society through progressive education. Dewey was keenly interested in the Soviet Union and wrote articles praising the educational system imposed by the Communists.

The material from Baer comes from his book. The Pledge of Allegiance. A central centennial history. In Looking Backward, the main character, Julian West, falls asleep in 1887, only to awaken in the year 2000. He finds an America where the means of production are owned by the state and everyone earns equal income. Jobs are assigned by the government to citizen conscripts who must work for the state from the age of 21 until retirement at 45.

Edward Bellamy, along with his cousin Francis Bellamy, were two major spokesmen for what they called nationalism, by which they meant the nationalizations of a nationalization of all industry under state control. Across America, some 167 Nationalist clubs were formed. In 1889, one of the Boston Nationalist clubs formed an auxiliary called the Society for Christian Socialists. According to Baird, the principles of the society stated that economic rights and powers were gifts of God not for the receiver’s use only, but for the benefit of all.

All social, political and industrial relations should be based on the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man and the spirit of teachings of Jesus Christ. Capitalism was not based on Christian love, but on selfish individualism. Francis Bellamy became the Vice President in charge of education for the Society. Other prominent members included Francis Willard, the leader of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and WDP Bliss, a well known minister.

The Bellamy cousins came from a long line of Baptist clergymen. Their grandfather had been a top aide to the Great Awakening evangelist Jonathan Edwards. Francis Bellamy was a seminary graduate and an ordained Baptist minister who openly preached socialism from the pulpit, but this led to conflicts with his congregation. One member, however, was enthusiastic about Bellamy’s socialist principles daniel Ford, editor of the religious publication the Youth’s Companion. Ford also was founder of Boston famed Ford Hall forum.

Thank you, Golden Tulip. That’s funny. After Bellamy was relieved of his ministry, ford offered him a position with his magazine. Together, they continued to work with various advocates of socialism and decided that a program was needed to teach American youth loyalty to the state. They realized that the individualist tradition in America did not lend itself easily to the patriotism needed for the socialist state of looking backward. Ford and Bellamy contacted National Education Association or the NEA, which was then headed by William Tory Harris.

Harris, according to Baer, believed in a state controlled public education system. As the leading hegelian philosopher in the United States, he believed that the state had a central role in society. He believed youth should be trained in loyalty to the state and the public school was the institution to plant fervent, loyalty and patriotism. Like many other American educators of his time, he admired and copied the Prussian educational system.

A staunch opponent of private education, Harris wanted public education centralized in every way possible and used his influence to work toward that goal. He was unhappy that local education made it difficult to exploit the schools and to indoctrinate children into accepting their proper role in society. His goal was shared by the Nationalist of the Nationalist Clubs. The Lynn Massachusetts Club persuaded the state legislature to require attendance at school until 15 years of age and to increase the school year from 15 to 35 weeks or excuse me, from 20 to 35 weeks.

John Taylor Gatto, an outspoken critic of government education, notes that Harris was one of the main proponents of using government schooling to indoctrinate and not educate. Gatto, in a speech on education, Confederacy of Dunsas The Tyranny of Compulsory Education, quotes Harris 99 students out of 100 are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. Godo continues. This is not an accident, Harris explains, but the result of substantial education, which scientifically defined is the subsumption of the individual.

It is obvious why Harris was happy to join Bellamy’s crusade. In 1892, Harris got the NEA to support a national public school celebration which would promote loyalty to both the state and its schools. It was decided that they would promote an agenda written by the Youth’s Companion. The NEA asked Bellamy to be the chairman of the celebration. At the main event, he gave a speech that showed the importance of public education in the task of political indoctrination.

He told the audience the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenships belongs irrevocably to the state. Bellamy, like his cousin, wanted to use government schools to help promote a socialist agenda. He felt that one way of encouraging this agenda would be by teaching of state loyalty. To this end, he wrote a pledge which students across the country were asked to take with a few minor changes to this pledge is what is now called the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, allegiance is an obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. Bellamy attempted to accomplish several goals with his Pledge of Allegiance. He saw it as a means of inculcating support for a centralized national government over the federalist system of the Founding Fathers. He was particularly troubled by the idea that the individual states formed the federal government, fearing that secession from the Union might be seen as legitimate.

After all, he kept in mind the Oath of Allegiance, which was forced on the south after the Civil War. Bear quotes Bellamy as saying, the true reason for allegiance to the flag is the republic for which it stands. And what does that vast thing, the Republic, mean? It is the concise political word for nation, the one nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that one idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible.

As Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. I’m going to get something to drink here, guys. I hope you guys are actually finding this interesting and not just smoking pot. So all right. Ford’s Youth Companion first published Bellamy’s Pledge on September 8 of 1892 in its original format. I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Bellamy’s widow said. He lamented that he couldn’t use the motto of the French Revolution liberty, Fraternity and equality. Instead, he was tempted to use the phrase but though it was though thought but thought that it was too fanciful and that its use was thousands of years off. In realization, the Youth Companion actively promoted the pledge and loyalty to the government. At the time, it was uncommon for a school to fly a flag outside its premises.

That practice was almost exclusively associated with military bases. But during its campaign, the Youth’s Companion sold thousands of flags for use at public schools. Baer said francis Bellamy acknowledged that his pledge put forth the ideas of cousin Edward. Francis originally toyed with the idea of making the pledge more openly socialistic, but decided that if he did so it would never be accepted. And that’s interesting right there because again, that just goes to show you that these socialists and the people who believe in socialism and centralized government, they recognize what they were doing.

They’re not stupid people. They know that in order to get something to be accepted by people who are free people, you’re not going to be able to do it. You’re going to have to tweak it and make it acceptable or something that people will agree to, even if there’s an ulterior motive behind it. But in order to do it, it has to be in small chunks, in an incremental way in order to achieve the ultimate goal.

And that’s basically what he’s saying there. The reason that elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution is clear. And the reason that Francis Bellamy wrote his pledge is also clear. Bellamy’s goal was not to inculcate the values of Jefferson and Adams. Instead, his desire was to promote the socialist utopian idea or the socialist utopianism of his cousin Edward. The US. Constitution is anathema to socialists of all types.

It is a roadblock to be circumvented that Edward Bellamy understood. This can be seen in his companion or in his comparison of the written US. Constitution and the unwritten one. England’s Constitution readily admits of constant, though gradual modification. Our American Constitution does not readily admit of such change. England can thus move into socialism almost imperceptibly. Our Constitution, being largely individualistic, must be changed to admit of socialism and each change necessitates a political crisis.

And that’s quoted by Rose L. Martin from the Fabian Freeway, page 136. The British Fabian socialist Ramsay McDonald came to the same conclusion after a visit to the United States. In a speech printed in the February 1898 Fabian News, he said the great bar to progress in the United States is the written Constitutions, federal and state. When an oath for schoolchildren was being contemplated, the socialists knew exactly what they were.

The basically those are the articles. There was a couple of others, but they were essentially just regurgitating the same thing and the redundancy was way too much. But these two, even though they had a little bit of redundancy, were different enough, and gave alternate perspectives that I thought that they were worthwhile to read. But just the notion that we celebrate the Pledge of Allegiance and again, I don’t have a problem with pledging allegiance to the Constitution, pledging allegiance to the country, I don’t have a problem with that.

But it’s not that we’re pledging allegiance to the country. It’s like what we’re pledging allegiance to. It’s a play on words. And by playing on the words, what you’re doing is words mean things. And when you mess with the words and what you’re doing is you’re doing things that are it’s having an impact on people subconsciously. Whether you want to believe it or not, it does have an impact on people.

So look at where we are today. Look at the school system. Look at the amount of people who identify as socialists. Let me see here. Let’s see here. Let me see here. Poll american accepting socialism. Um, modest declines in positive use of socialism. Gallup, socialism, capitalism. See here. I mean, I could go to images and see if I can find it because I think Net positivity towards socialism, capitalism, the free market in general.

Let’s see here. Yeah, this is okay. So Net positivity towards socialism, capitalism, and the free market by generation. So positivity towards socialism, capitalism, and the free market. So the free market still is still boomers are at about probably 55%. Gen X is at about 50%. Millennials are about 40%. And Gen Z, it’s actually starting to trend back upward, probably a little bit over 40%. But socialism boomers, the positive for socialism is about 10%.

Gen X up to almost 20. Millennials are over 20%, probably about 20. Looks like about 22, maybe 25%, something like that. And Gen z it’s pretty much unchanged. And I don’t know when this is, if there’s any let’s see if there’s visit the page and see if there’s any how Americans feel about socialism in the midst of the Coronavirus so this is from 2020. Actually, let’s read this.

This might be interesting to read. How Americans feel about socialism in the midst of the Coronavirus cris. It’s not too long here. The Coronavirus Pandemic has taken an enormous human and economic toll on the United States, leaving an unprecedented number of American unemployed and lacking financial security. Given these circumstances, it may be natural to expect people to express a desire for a more socialist approach to government policy.

Yet Americans have traditionally had an aversion to socialism as a label. A 2019 Gallup poll found that over half of Americans believed some form of socialism would be a bad thing for the country. And a 2018 UGOV poll showed that over half of Democrats and two thirds of Republicans would be uncomfortable with the socialist candidate. However, things there are signs that Americans warm to socialism in the face of economic crisis.

Recent research shows that after the 2008 Great recession. More Americans support socialism and associate socialism more with social benefits than with Cold War communism. Additionally, the recent rise of democrat socialists such as AOC of New York, Rashida Tlaev of Michigan and Bernie Sanders shows an increasing acceptance and support toward the socialist label. Are Americans showing even more open mindedness towards socialism during the current economic crisis? Since April, the data for tracking poll has been asking Americans would some form of socialism be a good thing or a bad thing for the country as a whole? Responses are evenly divided.

While 35% of respondents believe some form of socialism is a good thing, a slightly higher percentage, 38%, believe socialism would be a bad thing in the United States. The remaining 27% of respondents reported no opinion when asked if they felt positively neutrally or negatively toward the term socialism. Respondents are less positive towards the term more than four in five respondents are negative or neutral towards socialism, while only around 18% feel positively towards the term.

So while many Americans think some form of socialism would be a good thing, a much smaller group express completely positive views towards them. Attitudes towards a form of socialism in the United States it’s about 35% say a good thing, about 20. Looks like about 25% say they don’t have an opinion and around 40% say it’s not a good thing. Attitudes towards the term socialism negative 42% neutral about 40% and positive a little less than 20%.

While the label of socialism remains politically divisive, support for socialist policy proposals is less so. In the same tracking poll, we’ve been capturing opinions on a large number of progressive policies. Here we focus on four policies that can most easily be considered socialist a single payer government insurance system, sometimes called Medicare for all a long term expansion of unemployment insurance to ensure American workers have income when they lose their jobs.

The government guaranteeing a job for all Americans if they can’t find one in the private sector at all times. And universal paid sick and family Medicare leave. We tallied how many of these proposals respondents supported and we plot that figure in the graph below. Over one third of Americans support all four of these socialist policies, and more than half of Americans support at least one or excuse me, at least three of these four proposals.

Only about 15% of Americans support none of the five socialist policies. Overall, support for socialist policies appear to be significantly higher than support for socialism. And then this is the number of socialist policies supported. So zero, about 15%, one about looks like about 13%, two again about 15. Three about a little over 24, looks like about 35. But how closely are these dynamics related? They are in fact, pretty well correlated.

The next plot shows net positive ratings of the term socialism the percent saying it would be a good thing, minus the percent saying it would be a bad thing, depending on how many socialist policies a respondent supported. There is a clear linear relationship between supporting socialist policies and supporting socialism. However, support for socialist policies in general is generally higher. Only respondents supporting at least three of the four socialist policies are more likely to say that socialism would be a good thing than a bad thing.

Respondents who supported half of the four socialist proposals still had a clear net negative feelings towards socialism in the United States. And then so here’s the Positivity rating or Positivity towards socialism by number of socialist policies supported zero. Not really quite sure how zero is going to be. The net positive is zero. And then this is the negative. I guess it’s in the negatives. Not really quite sure how to read that graph, actually.

The next figure examines attitudes towards socialism by generation. Previous polling shows that most recent economic crisis led to generational gaps in attitudes towards socialism which younger generations impacted by the Great Recession favor socialism more than older generations who grew up during the Cold War in the midst of another economic crisis. There are still generational gaps in attitudes towards socialism? Are there still generational gaps towards socialism? Support for socialism by generation so the support for all four socialist policies the silence is at 20% boomers 30, gen X 40, millennials a little bit more than 40 and Gen Z a little less than 40.

That’s why I say Gen Z is actually gen Z is I think there is a turn coming. Gen Z is actually going to be more conservative than the millennials. That is what I have heard, and I think these statistics are bearing that out. Consistent with previous research, older respondents are less favorable towards both socialism and socialist policies when compared to younger generations. Gen Xers stand out, however, while they are just as supportive of socialist policies as younger citizens, and they like the term socialism significantly less.

By contrast, millennials and Gen Z are not only supportive of socialist policies, but also show relatively strong affinity for the socialist label, supporting research that generations who didn’t live through the Red Scare are more comfortable with socialism. The tracking poll also asked respondents if they had a positive, negative or neutral view towards capitalism and the free market. The next plot compares attitudes on socialism with their capitalism and the free market.

The next plot compares attitudes on socialism with those for capitalism and the next. Free and the free market. Here we can see a stark generational divide. Older Americans are much more positive towards capitalism than socialism compared to younger generations. While over 60% of the silent generation supports capitalism slightly over 5% support socialism. However, those gaps shrink for younger respondents. Gen Z and Millennials are only about four points more supportive of capitalism than socialism.

And this is the original graph that I looked at. So let’s see here. The free market is generally rated more favorably than capitalism. Gen Z, millennials and gen X are over ten points more supportive of the free market than they are of capitalism. By contrast, the silent generations expressed equally positive support for both free market and capitalism. As the country attempts to grapple the economic toll of coronavirus in the midst of a presidential campaign, it is especially important to consider how undecided voters view socialism.

The next graph that shows that undecided voters, while more supportive of the socialist policies than Trump voters, are still relatively lukewarm when it comes to both the socialism label and uniform support for socialist policies. So let’s see here. Support for socialism by 2020, vote preference, support for all four. For Biden, socialism was good for the country. Yeah, it just doesn’t shock me here. And then support for the term socialism.

So all of the Biden people are going to be super on board? The Trump people are going to be, for the most part, no and undecided. And I would argue that some of the Trump people here that are pro socialism are probably Democrats who still, while they are supporting Trump, they still have some of their roots in the socialist camp. But that’s just my own personal belief system.

Let’s see here nearly and this is almost over here nearly half of Biden’s supporters say socialism would be good for the country, while a similar percentage of his backers also support all four socialist policies. In fact, the average Biden voter supports three out of four socialist policies we asked about. Notably, even the average Trump voter indicated support for 1. 9 of the socialist policies. Undecided voters find themselves, not surprisingly, in between.

They supported 2. 4 socialist policies on average, while Trump tried to take advantage of the low support for socialism as a label in his 2019 State of the Union address. By declaring that socialism destroys nations, the country is now experiencing a devastating pandemic and economic crisis during which democratic socialist policies are highly popular. I don’t know about that. I think the media is trying to make us believe they’re highly popular.

Biden could take advantage of relatively high support for socialist policies amongst many Americans by adopting some of these proposals. Anyway, that is that and I apologize, guys. I read that whole thing and I didn’t share the screen. I’m so sorry. I don’t know what I was thinking. I did not share that with you guys. I apologize, but I’ll share the link. In fact, I’ll add this I will add this link to the give me a second here.

I’m going to add it to the thing here. I put the five articles that I had considered reading even though there was some overlap. So I’m putting the 6th one, which is the one that I just found. I’m going to put it in here and then I’m going to save it so it is updated in the description the that is done and done. All right, guys, that’s basically all I have for tonight, guys.

Short. I actually thought it was going to take a little bit longer, but it didn’t. It actually went pretty quick. But I found it very interesting, especially the picture of the American kids basically doing the Nazi salute or the Roman actually, that was really more of a Roman salute that was adopted by and I hate saying Nazis, because it wasn’t Nazis. Nazis is actually a derogatory term. The National Socialists was what they really called themselves.

They didn’t call themselves Nazis. But anyway, I just thought it was interesting, some of that information about the and I can’t even talk tonight the the Pledge of Allegiance. I thought some of that was was really thought provoking. You know, I and stuff that I didn’t even know. I mean, I’d heard some of it, but I but not to that degree of depth. And one thing I try to pride myself in giving you guys is information that is different from what everybody else has given you.

So a few things coming up on the channel. I reached out to Mike King. In fact, here, let me show you Mike King. Share this here. I’ll share screen. So these are Mike King’s books called The Bad War. Basically, that demolishes the lie of World War II. The foundational mythology that defines the modern world. The British mad dog. Basically, he is not very flattering of Winston Churchill. The war against Putin.

Planet Rothschild. Planet rothschild Volume Two. Hitler’s Suicide note the climate, boogeyman. St. Joseph of Wisconsin. And this is all about Senator Joe McCarthy and his going after all of the communism that had infiltrated the American government. Andrew the Great talking about Andrew Jackson and his destruction of the central bank. The Song that Never Ends, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on the song that never ends is basically he’s not really a believer in the let me, let me, let me let me think about how to say this correctly.

So he does not subscribe in the notion that the German government engaged in a systematic execution of Jews and of people in the concentration camps. He is more of the opinion that most of the people that died, died as a result of typhus as opposed to deliberate executions by gassings. And he actually makes his arguments in there. Let’s see here. The God versus Darwin. An interview with Hitler, the real Roosevelt.

Napoleon versus the New World Order. Mine side of the story I don’t like. Ike Bankarada exposes the scam of the central banking in a funny and entertaining allegorical story about the medieval kingdoms of pizza and pasta and beer and Strudel. Teddy the Terrible, the Hitler photo album and QAnon the Storm 120 year timeline, woodrow Wilson warmonger killing, America 100 year murder and the morphine genocide. And then two more, the Genghis monster proofs of the New World Order.

And then Libtard Savant. So what we’re going to be discussing is we’re going to be discussing the 120 year timeline and that’s going to be a week from today. So that is coming up. And Mike King is a very knowledgeable guy that done some exceptional work over the course of the time that I’ve known him. So got a few people coming. In fact, before I terminate it, I want to go through and look through the chat because I really didn’t have a chance.

I mean, I saw you guys were saw a bunch of people were talking about getting stoned. One thing that I should probably do is there’s a channel out there called what is it? Asha Lagos. And he put together a couple of very riveting videos on the French Revolution. And it’s heartbreaking of kind of what really happened there. And when you look at the French Revolution, the French Revolution was basically socialistic in nature.

It was, it was all about them basically was communism before communism was there was was out there because communism really didn’t have its coming out party until the early 19 hundreds. The initial try to make Russia communist was 1905 and they failed. And then the second attempt was in 1917 with the Bolshevik invasion. Let’s see here. Let me go back and see here. Let’s see. Jordan Peterson. Yeah, I want to hear words.

Let’s see. Interesting yarn addict. Okay, so you’re saying I’m guessing you’re saying that Jordan Peterson is not a good person. I would like to know why you think that. When I was in school in the they were really pushing the socialism button. There was a number of teachers that retired and they were replaced by super lefty newbies. Yeah, exactly. But that was and it was just a continual perpetual more and more lefties came in.

And that’s where we are now. Let’s see. But I’m curious why you don’t like Jordan Peterson. Actually, I don’t agree with Jordan Peterson 100% of the time, but I actually think that I love when he dismantles a lot of the lefties with just straight logic and the abuse that he takes is staggering. You know what? Two by four he’s asking the question, did I see the Elon thing with Rogan recently? And I have not.

But I want to watch that. I’ve heard a few people talking about see. Yeah. Katie, you kind of missed out. You’re going to probably have to go back and watch this. Let’s see. I put the clip on my channel. Yes. Wag the dog tomorrow. Yes. As soon as I get done with this, I’m going to be putting up the Wag the Dog preview and have it ready to go.

Let’s see here. Yes, I agree. Yarn. She said this is helpful. Forgive me yarn. I’m assuming you’re a she. This is so helpful. We need to learn how to fix before we can fix it. Agreed. If we don’t know what to fix, then we can’t fix. Okay. Hello, Ken. Queen. When we can discuss Lib Tart Savant to it another time. I’m sure that when he comes on and we do some stuff, he’ll probably want to do several other shows because he’ll find out that we are in such strong agreement.

Machiavellia. The prince on YouTube. Insane mindset. Elites. Is that a two X four? Is that a specific YouTube video that you have? If you have a specific video, can you share the link? Would you be kind enough to share the link? Yes, exactly. Katie, let’s see. Hello, suspense. You’re very welcome. So he’s connected to the Illuminati. I’m curious why you say he’s connected to the Illuminati. I don’t ask that in a disrespectful way.

I’m just curious to where your receipts are on that. Because there’s a lot of things that I’ve seen of Jordan Peterson over the years and the fact that he has stood up to certain things. Actually, I was fortunate enough to actually hear him speak once. And I’m a fan of Jordan. Like I said, I don’t agree with 100% of everything that he does, but I think that he does.

Okay, thank you for sharing that. Two by four. Appreciate that. Jordan Peterson is just like all those in his field. He flip flops around and his word salads. He does do a lot of word salad, that is for sure. Okay. All right, guys, well, I have gone through the comments and I have gotten my stuff out, so I’m going to cut it out. I’m going to cut it short tonight, and I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow for the Wag the Dog View party.

Saturday morning, I’m going to be doing something with Alpha Warrior and Nino, and then I think I’m going to upload a few documentaries over the weekend so you guys can watch, because there’s a few things that I really want to get up and posted, but I got a lot of stuff that I really want to do and get it up there. But anyway, that said, guys, I will let you all enjoy your evening and look forward to seeing y’all mignana.

So have a really good night, everybody, and be well. Chat manana. .