The Declining Oath in the Age of Globohomo

This past Sunday was Veterans Day, a day of remembrance and reflection to honor the many men, and yes, women, who have served in the United States military. As Unreconstructed Southerners, we also use this day to reflect on the fallen who bravely defended the Confederate States of America from Northern Aggression.

With a South and Central American contingency of would-be invaders making their way to the southern border, and with US military assets being deployed there to give “logistical support” to border patrol and immigration agencies and the controversy stemming from that deployment, it is worth examining the core “principles” of the United States military and how the fundamental purpose of that military has evolved in the course of more than two centuries. Let’s take some time to examine the Oath of Enlistment and Oath of Office that enlisted, non-commissioned, and commissioned officers take when sworn into the duration of their service. You can read the entire history of those oaths here

For the sake of brevity, we will focus on the Oath of Enlistment. The following, under Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960, is the oath recited by an enlisted personnel at his swearing in:

“I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Note that there are two basic premises embedded within this oath. One, that the enlisted personnel is affirming his duty to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, (i.e the idea of and/or the laws of the United States), as opposed to his actual country, folk, kin, or even simply the current citizenry of said nation. Second, the stated enemy that he is defending these ideas and laws from can be BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Because, when you have distilled a nation down to an idea or a set of laws rather than the genetic kinsmen, homogeneous culture, or even the religious or civic body from which it is derived, you can rightly claim ANYONE an enemy and rationalize pointing a gun at your own brother if called to do so.

The current oath has seen many revisions since the founding of this country. Again, for brevity, we will take a look at the first oath agreed upon by the congress in the Articles of War following the US Revolution. Adopted on September 20th, 1776, the original Oath of Enlistment read:

“I ___ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.”

This earlier oath was much more in-line with what you would expect from the Founding Fathers. Clearly, the personnel taking the oath was instructed to defend his COUNTRY, (i.e. these “United States”), from “enemies or opposers” of said “United States.” There is a certain amount of ambiguity in who those enemies might be, be they “foreign” or “domestic,” but given the climate of the time the Founding Fathers were clearly rooting out any dissident loyalty there might be to King George and the Royal Crown of England. This was an obvious demonstration of national sovereignty, as opposed to a statement in defense of “ideas” or “rule of law.” To summarize, the enemy of the United States would have been any foreign power wishing to threaten the security of the civic body, i.e. the people, of the United States, (perhaps Spain or France) or any dissident who had remaining loyalties to the English government which had recently been overthrown.

I would like to think that at this point in history, the governing bodies and politicians who were the founding stock were still beholden to the noble idea of democracy and, as such, would have welcomed a certain degree of dissent and political opposition to the newly formulated Constitution of this country. After all, it was designed to be amendable. It stands to reason that a domestic enemy would not be an opposition party who seeks to reform the Constitution in a way favorable to that party’s interests. Again, a domestic enemy would be an infiltrator or a disloyalist who seeks to subvert the sovereignty of the civic body to promote the interests of a foreign power.

The Oath of Enlistment remained basically unchanged until 1950, but a pivotal revision that changed the entire tenor of the Oath of Office came during the American Civil War. In 1862 the Oath of Office became:

“I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never 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 I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

And in 1884 this simpler format was accepted which would later be the template for the Oath of Enlistment:

“I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The climate of that time in history was starkly different from that of 1776. The founding stock had completely died off, and the issues of slavery and “state’s rights” had created enough hostility within the populace of this young nation that the rule of law was breaking down. When the C.S.A. formed and dissolved its ties to the US Constitution, the remaining Northern states sought to stop the bleeding so to speak. A new concept emerged, that is, loyalty to the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, rather than loyalty to the people or nation. This was to be the beginning of the end of the traditional concept of patriotism in Western thought. If patriotism was to be considered loyalty to a people, then civil war was justified when cultural or racial homogeneity was threatened. Those natural reasons could no longer be justified in the minds of Northerners. Therefore, the concept of nationhood must change and the Constitution itself HAD to become the glue that bound the nation together. And once it was decided that it was ideas, and not people, who determined the destiny of a nation, then anyone willing to accept the premise of those ideas could rightly become an American. Thus, the stage was set for participation in two World Wars, the Cold War, the civil unrest of the 1960s and the 1965 Immigration Act.

It is remarkable really, what has become of the United States military. As I write this, “Mongoloid Hordes” of Aztecs and Mayans are marching their way to invade our lands, and have literally claimed the US Constitution as legal jurisdiction for their actions. They have sought legal counsel and are suing the President of the United States and are using our own lofty “ideas” against us.

But, it is worse than that. These people do not offer any pretense of any kind of oath of allegiance to our Constitution. They do not accept our ideas. Our ideas are only tools to be used against us. They seek economic advantage ONLY. And that, my friends, is the logical conclusion of the evolution that our once-great nation has taken. We are no longer a “marketplace of ideas,” as preposterous as that phony concept ever was in the first place. We are now simply a “marketplace.” And, our soldiers are stationed at the border not to protect the security of even the US Constitution itself anymore, but rather to facilitate the orderly movement of new labor into the market.

Therefore, I think it is time to propose a new Oath of Enlistment. The following seems appropriate:

“I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Economic Interests of the United States Oligarchy against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the Chief Executive Officers of Google, Amazon and Facebook, and the orders of the Antifa thugs appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me.”

– By Dixie Anon

Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am;
For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn!
I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won,
And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.

4 comments

  1. Overall a good article, but the first part about th 1776 oath is a bit confusing.

    ‘who had remaining loyalties to the English government which had recently been overthrown’

    In 1776, when the oath was written, England hadn’t been overthrown, yet.

    ‘would have welcomed a certain degree of dissent and political opposition to the newly formulated Constitution of this country. ‘

    The Constitution wasn’t written until 1787 and wasn’t implemented until 1789. In 1776, the Articles of Confederation weren’t even written down yet, the whole government was a somewhat ad hoc affair. So agreement or disagreement with national governmental organization couldn’t have been an issue for the composers of the 1776 oath.

    None of this detracts from your point, though, I just found it confusing until I got farther into the article.

    My feeling has always been that the Constitution was a second American Revolution: what started out as these United States
    became The United States. A bundle of individual States were nationalised into one political body and as such ceased to be states and became provinces. The revolution was cemented during the WBTS and in the political and legal aftermath especially the paying of the Bill of Rights to the states. Essentially turning the state’s own weapon against them.

    And that segues nicely into your point about these Mexican hordes using our ideas against us. In the modern US, they may actually be more ‘American’ the we traditionalists.

    The Federalist vs Anti federalist debate is the most crucial event to understanding US political history. It’s telling that it’s not taught in schools.

    1. I don’t think the part about welcoming dissenting opinions was specifically targeting a date (i.e. 1776), but rather the era. 1789 was only 12 years later, so the Oath of Enlistment at this time was a reflection of the attitudes that prevailed concerning liberty and nationalism right up until the cecession of the confederate states. So the “era” would have been the first 75 years or so when the philosophies behind the revolution, Declaration of Independence etc were all still fresh and some of the founding stock and veterans of the war were still living.