PROGRESSIVE PATRIOTISM VS THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

Part Two

False patriotism and hijacked truth.

Unfortunately, the America that the founding fathers created, and we still worship to this very day, only lived for a little over seventy years. That America, where distinctly different groups of people who believed in different forms of governance, who joined together and worked together for mutual benefit, no longer exists today. It was murdered by progressives who believed that they had the right to force all the other states to be governed in only one way, their way. This isn’t freedom. This isn’t liberty for all. This isn’t how the founding fathers designed the United States. This isn’t what America stands for.

One of the tools the progressives have used to tremendous effect in indoctrinating Americans into a near fanatical loyalty to their form of government is the pledge of allegiance. A socialist named Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge of allegiance. He did so because he detested the Jeffersonian ideas of limited government ensconced in our founding principles. His reasons for writing the pledge were based on incorrect assumptions that the founding fathers created “one nation…indivisible”. Tragically, or maybe by design, Congress never even considered the socialist origin of the pledge when they officially adopted it in 1942. The tragedy being it has become an untouchable sacred cow, and Americans embraced it as a cornerstone of American patriotism without understanding its socialist origin and purpose. It is a false patriotism that is counter to the principles set forth by the founding fathers.

The United States was not founded on the principles of socialism where the state is the final arbiter of all things over the individual. It was not founded on the presumption that once a state joined it was forever forced to stay in that union. Would it surprise you to learn that the New England states almost seceded from the union before the Southern states actually did? And the founding fathers still alive at the time had no issue with this because that was the very founding principles of the union, to begin with. Here is an article concerning this event in our history.

The United States was founded on principles completely opposite of socialism, that the people are the final arbiter of all things over the government. It was founded with the understanding that any state could leave the union voluntarily if circumstances dictated it. This is the complete opposite of indivisible, as Bellamy’s pledge of allegiance would have us believe.

The founding fathers designed the United States to be a federated Union of Sovereign States. A Republic not a Democracy, where the states and the people are sovereign over the federal government except for the few defined powers enumerated in the constitution. It is well documented by the founding fathers in numerous letters and writings that the American Union was voluntary. Had the constitution been proposed to the States on the premise that it created “one nation” that was “indivisible”, not a single State would have ratified it.

Bellamy’s pledge of allegiance rejects every principle upon which the founding fathers constructed the United States, and what America stands for. His pledge was written from a socialist viewpoint that believes “allegiance” to a central State is “patriotic”. You are taught this in state schools. You are taught that to be a true “patriot” you must pledge allegiance to the state without question. This view is the exact antithesis of the American ideal of self-determination and secession. There is nothing “patriotic” about it at all.

If the pledge is so important to Americans that they foam at the mouth when someone doesn’t say it or doesn’t stand for the national anthem, then why don’t they stand in their own living rooms when watching a sporting event and the anthem is played on TV?

99-households-national-anthemHistory is written by the winners. This is a great tragedy to humanity since it means history is one sided, the truth is lost when you can only see one side of the coin or only hear one side of the story. It should be obvious to almost anyone, but especially parents, that there are always two sides to any story.

Truth in the middle

A very good example of Americans never getting to hear the rest of the story is the history of the first Thanksgiving in America. Scott Strzelczyk wrote a short article about this on his blog. Would it change your perspective about that first Thanksgiving to know that the Indians had to save the colonists because of food shortages? Bad luck and bad weather contributed to poor food crops for the colonists. However, another major contributing factor was that they practiced socialism. It almost killed them all, if not for the Indians bailing them out. Thankfully they learned from their mistake and corrected the problem by jettisoning socialism. Here is an excerpt of Scott’s article of William Bradford’s, governor of Plymouth Colony, own journal entry’s concerning this historic event.

 

“All profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remaine still in the commone stock until the division… That all such persons as are of this colonie, are to have their meate, drink, apparel, and all the provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said collonie.

 For this comunitie was found to be much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.  For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence.

After two years of insufficient harvests, Bradford and others reconsidered the socialist system practiced within Plymouth Colony. The Governor and his advisors implemented a plan where each colonist had their own land and was responsible for working the land.  Most importantly, every family kept what they produced for themselves. Bradford wrote in his journal:

So they begane to thinke how they might rasie as much torne (corn) as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still languish in miserie… And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use and ranged all boys and youth under some familie.  This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more torne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente.  The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their little-ons with them to set torne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

 By this time harvest was come, and in stead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God.  And the effect of their particular planting was well scene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare and sell to others,  so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s