Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Yiffox

Strange History - the Pledge of Allegiance

by
One of the more bizarre things Ive encountered in my study of the history they dont tellz u

so yeah we all did it, turn to the flag and pledge to it

but the facts around this thing we all did in america are odd

so who wrote it?  a communist, (old school overthrow the gov communist way back in later half of 1800's too)

why?  well 1. to indoctrinate kids to pledge toward a federal power (one must remember just 20 yrs previous a civil war was fought between state and federal powers, in which the states held legal right to do so, but fed held military/political right to deny people their democratic/voting rights + 700,000 killed to do so, yeah Lincoln's a hero, riiiiiiiiiight) and 2. capitalism, to sell flags, his bro was in the flag making business

so right there...a communist making an indoctrination speech to further capitalist aims, umm huh?

but let's continue in this strangeness...the original salute (you put your hand over your heart now, originally you stretched your arm out in salute....FDR changed that as it was the exact same as the Nazi salute (National SOCIALISTS)

Whats even more odd is that Truman added the words "under God" as an affront to communist worldwide forces.  So the initial communist pledge goes 180 degrees in the 50's/

heh

i find it funny, wut do u think?
Viewed: 72 times
Added: 5 years, 5 months ago
 
MystBunny
5 years, 5 months ago
One thing that confuses me is why in school you have to pledge allegiance every single day. Does allegiance expire in 24 hours? Seems to last longer when done on Fridays though.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Good question.  Why does the pledge to the flag only last a day but christians renewing their pledge to god lasts a solid week?  Or maybe they think the kids aren't as good at pledging as adults?
Whitehair
5 years, 5 months ago
Repetition was how things were taught and if something was repeated enough it became a belief; a part of your character to keep you from ever turning against your country.  A very common training technique.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
So it's exactly like parents indoctrinating their children into their religion then?
Whitehair
5 years, 5 months ago
In a way.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
eh adding under god is really trivial since most people believe in a higher spirtial power, and thats a new addition...the thing i want to call attention to is the 1 nation indivisible, written 20 yrs after the civil war.  It is indoctrination, that states have no power to secede.

Legally, this would fall under the 10th amendment.  How was it settled?  by illegal force by the same president, Lincoln, that lied to congress, suspended habeus corpus ( a right since the 1200's), and illegally killed 700,000 people to enhance the power of the fed.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
You do raise the good yet rare point that the pledge has been altered multiple times, not just the most recent when 'under god' was added.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
whats amusing there is it was an anticommunist measure when the person who made it up was communist XD
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
I want to double check this, do you mean the altered pledge became an anti-communism tool while the original pledge was written by a communist?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
yes....oh did i mention the best part?  the original salute was a NAZI like hand salute, hand toward flag, FDR changed that for obvious reasons, to over heart,....

but again, NAZI is national socialists heh
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
You did mention the salute and how that needed to be changed.  ^_^
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
i know but aint it awesome, can u imagine millions of chillins doing nazi salutes to the flag?
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Don't need to imagine it, that happened in Nazi Germany.  Only difference was which flag it was two and they were fascist not socialist.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Nazi is more nationalised fascism, not socialism.  
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
both are government controlled economies....the only real difference is methods and talking points. Sad thing is were heading that way too...look at the stated goals of communism per Marx, and tell me how far we are from that now?
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Um, no.  Fascism is government hand in hand with corporations and using a mixture of economics and police action to exploit the working class.  Socialism has never actually been practiced, but theoretically it is when people care about each other and cooperate for mutual benefit without the need for government management.  Communism is the stepping stone from fascism or capitalism to socialism in which the government attempts to control the economy and populace to try to train them out of normal self interest (human nature) and foster the community-first focus required for socialism to actually work...EXCEPT, in practice whoever runs a communist system has invariably failed to give up power and hand it over to the people.  

Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Fascism per say varied in their economies depending on the state it was practiced in, as its not an economic system, but a political one.  Generally they were state run economies that allowed private ownership, but they choose who owned it by creating monopolies, as fewer businesses were easily to control.  

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.  There are various forms of what "public" means from communal ownership to state ownership.  Socialism has been practiced many times.  Soviet union was a form of state owned socialism and there have been many times communal ownership has been practiced at the village level.  It also applies to ours and europe's economy as they are a mixture of who owns what....in that the state, corporations, and labor unions all effectively make management decisions as well as having state owned corporations like Feddie and Fannie Mac.  The US also determines what amount of their wages they can directly keep (taxes) making us effectively owned by the government.

Now Nazis were indeed far more socialist than those models.  Yes there was private ownership, but the state determined which companies would be owners and gave them a monopoly over that field, preventing competition and people from entering the field.  They also determined wages and prices, not the so called owners.  They further prevented sale of farmland effectively tying farmers to their land.  Then they also gave monopolies over the distributors of products.  Then they also determined the salaries of the so called owners of the corporations.  It was an entirely state managed economy and entirely socialist.

Compare to the Soviets who also set prices and wages, tied workers to their jobs/farms and determined who would get what.  The only real difference between the two is that the "owners" were "managers" under communism and the state said it owned everything rather than having in name only ownership.

Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well what's overtly taught is your allegiance to the federal government rather than to your state.  Remember this is just 20 yrs after civil war.  Before which each state was sovereign.  After through illegal use of force, the fed is sovereign, so illegal use of force trumps the constitution which states any rights not declared (such as right to secede by vote as duly done by the south) is declared by the 10th amendment.
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
Regardless of whether or not the Right to Secede is clearly defined in the Constitution (where it's arguable that Freedom of Association would cover this) the fact that the modern nation was created through the action of Seceding from the British Empire lends all the legal precedence required.   Don't approve of secession?  Well, I guess you'd rather just remain part of Britain then.  Or, hell, part of the Roman Empire, as they had dominion over much of Europe, and their collapse was no excuse to stop paying them fealty, right?
Yiffox
5 years, 2 months ago
see that's a misnomer. 3 states DECLARED their right to secede when they joined, Virginia, RH and I think NY.  Texas was an independent nation that also had declared powers to secede.  Also the United states did not win her independence, the individual colonies did.  Each was a separate state and each is listed on the peace treaty.  But not sure if your arguing for or against right for states to secede
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
Arguing for  
As the Right to Freedom of Association should also mean you have the freedom to decide not to associate.  Just as Freedom of Religion should include the right to not be religious.

Basically, exercising the right to secede led the colonies down the road to eventually become the US, therefore, if the US government denies the member states the right to secede, then they're denying the legitimacy of the US's existence as a nation independent of the British Empire.

I paraphrased a lot.  
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
Furthermore, legitimacy of an organization demands that membership be voluntary.  When someone does not have the right to secede, membership is not voluntary.  The US government only exists as a legitimate entity so long as it grants it's members the right to secede.  Otherwise it implies that people are not in fact independent and free participants, but subjects of the government.  The idea of the people being owned by the government is anathema to the spirit of individual liberty and personal freedom upon which the American Nation was allegedly founded. Acting as if the people are the property of the government is not only illegal but, considering the advertised principles of the country, tantamount to fraud.
Yiffox
5 years, 2 months ago
agreed, Lincoln was being as much a tyrant as the king was.  

He was also the first to introduce an income tax, although it was struck down after he died (he was throwing judges, including a supreme court judge, in jail for disagreeing with him when alive - worst president ever so far) which many people have the idea that the government owns your income and you are not only a subject of the state, but a slave for it as well.

You can hear this in dialogue about taxes all the time, rebates are the government giving you something, rather than taking less.
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
Yeah, it's like a mugger who holds you at gunpoint, takes your wallet, and then a few months later is like, "Actually, you know what? That was too much.  Here's your subway stamps and some quarters back."  
MystBunny
5 years, 5 months ago
Because gay people
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Yes. When in doubt, blame it on the gays.
MystBunny
5 years, 5 months ago
Yeah was a fallback because I couldn't think of anything better. hehe.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Don't feel bad!  It's worked for religion for thousands of years. :D
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
ugh really?  gay people have been central to many religions, which is why christianity singled them out perhaps?...edit

really i dont even believe in "gay" people.  To be honest, both str8 and gay are phases depending on who u are attracted to at the moment.  I dont think anyone is born sexual.  I prefer the non-political more truthful Kinseyian studies of sexuality back in the 50's.  I'm "gay" now, but if i found a noncrzy female, id totally switch....so how am I born gay?  Considering if I found a lion-est creature of either sex, id totally hit that.  repeatedly...daily

muhaha
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
That's why I said 'religion' not just christianity.  Fair's fair eh?  
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well no cuz a lot of religions put "homosexuals" at the top of their religion
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
Oh?  As something to be celebrated not scapegoated and punished?  Such as?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
well american indians and ancient grecians both put "gay" people at head of their religions.  Now the identification as "gay for life is modern and really silly to my point of view.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
You are remarkably rare in that you believe and feel you chose to be gay and that it could change in time.  It's not like that for almost all heterosexual and almost all homosexual people.  

Now with the American Indians, was it all tribes or just some that did so?  Did they just recognise homosexuality or were the shamans and whatnot always homosexuals in all the tribes?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
Well no I dont think if anyone is honest, EVERYONE changes in their attractions as they grow older.  Does anyone think attractions are fixed at birth?  that's ridiculous.  Proponents of that theory single out male-female attraction, but what about all the other attractions.  Fat/thin, young/old, hair color?  body hair?  cut or uncut?  etc...  who would claim all these things are fixed at birth and no one changes over their lifetime.

Come on, its typical for gay men to be attracted to their age -18 for most of their lives if not their age -10/5 to 18 as they grow older.  I see this listed in what people are looking for daily on websites.  Personally, those under 25 seem like children to me and I would never consider a relationship with one now.  So yes, as ive grown older, my tastes have changed.

and id rather do a skinny woman than a fat man anyday.  Just my tastes.  So weight trumps sexuality.  So am I gay or weightest?>

All I am I saying is just a lot more complicated than people want to portray as BORN THAT way, which is silly, no one is born sexual.  Ask any 5 yr old and they will say its gross.

What disturbs me is that the legal system adopts the born that way mentality and claims pedophiles are born that way and must be imprisoned for life.

Ive known many people in their early 20s who had sex with teens.  Those were mutual relationships, ie half the time the teen was the aggressor, but report it to the police, the guy in their 20s would be in prison and a pedophile for life.  My Point there.

Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
And the Indians?
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
you'd have to research which tribes did the homo thing and which didnt, its just an antedote for me
Stumpycoon
5 years, 5 months ago
I thought you had researched it?  Bugger.  
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
not the american indian thing, ive only heard that....
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
My sexual orientation is: Yes

It has been that way since as far back as I can remember.  I had bondage fantasies in kindergarten, and sexual thoughts before that.

I think sexuality is remarkably flexible.   A species that fucks under too many circumstances is more likely to survive than one that fucks under too few.  And there's further evidence to suggest that sex is a social function, and not merely a way of perpetuating the species.  So humans have adapted to be sexual omnivores.  Our sexuality can accommodate a wide array of orientations, many coexisting simultaneously in the same individual, but most people will never fully explore their potential, due to personal inhibitions or social stigmas.
Infinityplus1
5 years, 2 months ago
One possible factor in the condemnation of homosexuals is related the reasons why they also condemned witches (women who understood birth control, or who remained unmarried).  There's of course the fallback reason, that some people who happened to have political power thought it was icky, and therefore sinful, but the more pragmatic reason was because one of the ways of insuring the survival of your religion is to make sure those who practice it reproduce as much as possible.  So they would forbid any sexual activities that wouldn't likely result in offspring, I.E. Homosexuality, Sodomy, and Masturbation, and any methods of preventing or aborting pregnancies, such as Contraceptives.  This was especially critical after wars or diseases wiped out a significant portion of their population.  Some governments would make special exemptions for fornication, specifically to encourage population growth.

So basically what we have now is a social engineering tradition which was excused as being a divine edict, and people still believe the edict, and don't have the context of why, at the time, it was a logistical decision rather than a moral one.  Let's face it, organized religion benefits from a Celibate class of clerical workers, devoted entirely to the cause, but it cannot survive unless the general population of believers are outbreeding the other religions.
MobiusNesbit
5 years, 5 months ago
Funnily enough, the British oath of allegiance, while mentioning god as a sort of enforcer if you break it, is specifically to the Queen (what with her being the official head of government, and all). You only tend to make it if you're in a government position though...
Whitehair
5 years, 5 months ago
I believe that it was under pressure from The Knights of Columbus that "Under God" was added.  I shall research that and try to give you a reference.
Whitehair
5 years, 5 months ago
I guess KOC was one of the early organizations to adopt it before it was official.  Eisenhower was actually the one who put it into law and is purported to have stated, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."
MystBunny
5 years, 5 months ago
Wow, so he's already saying that every future war will have God's blessing. Good to know.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
ok so it was Eisenhower not Truman that added under God, but still the motive was against Communism
Terl
5 years, 5 months ago
In the UK, the Queen, is Head (figuratively) of The Goverment. She is Also Head Of The Church Of England, therefore God.

She is Also, Commander In Chief of the extremely loyal, very efficient, and increadibly psychotic armed forces, especially the special operations branches.

She is Also Head of the Royal Corperation. That is the collection of massive landowners, mineral rights, marketing and other commertial intrests, that last I heard, had her personal wealth at $10 Billion equiv.

Generally all a monarch has to do to remain around, it not fuck up and piss off the populance. The Queen has been Very careful to keep her family on the popular side. Thats why her sons are fed into the military machine and sent on active service. Sure they are treated far better, but they are a fuck sight closer to a bullet in the head than all but one politician I know off, who used to be a war correspondant fr the BBC.

If we didnt have a Royal Family, we would have had to create one.
Yiffox
5 years, 5 months ago
saw a conspiracy video today saying Prince william is the antichrist lolz
DraculJOSHI
5 years, 5 months ago
Why would you pledge allegiance to anything but a person you trust, a creature you revere as higher evolved than your own existence or a god you can truly call your own to have chosen?

I don't get you humans, you know that anyone of you is immensely failable by your very nature, yet you consider so many of your things 'true' or 'right' when it is more likely, that you only got part of the whole... and most of the time not even the important one.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.