As a child I had the honor to meet on some of my Saturday mornings with my grandfather and his friends with whom he had served in the First World War, as well as some from the Second World War, for coffee at the Hudson Bay Store downtown. During these moments I got the chance to talk to them about their war experience. One story comes to mind of one of their comrades being buried alive with one arm sticking out from what was to become the new wall of the trench. Before they went over the wall they all touched his hand for good luck. Silly, maybe; but those who didn’t failed to return. All of them said that they hoped that I would never see war in my life time. That wish of theirs has come true for Canadians, at least. They all believed that peacekeeping was the way to go for Canada as a country with a military large enough to protect Canada's territory. I asked if they would do it again, and without hesitation, the answer was always yes. My father's father enjoyed his service during the wars and believed that war was the ultimate test of man's ability. This did not stop him from having the nightmares about the war which all veterans had but did not talk about with each other. At the same time was quietly understood by each other and ignored when it raised itself during day's light. Probably due to this attitude and feeling he served in the reserves between the wars. Why did these men join up? Most answered duty to God, country and monarchy as well as loyalty to one's countrymen. For some it was a means to get away from where they lived, to see the world, and the fact that the military provided a steady income, room and board and three meals a day. My grandfather was a typical stiff British-style officer and man. He believed that every British boy and girl should have three books besides them: the Bible, Shakespeare and Milton, for who could be lonely or uninspired with these masterpieces of literature? During the First World War he was offered a commission with a regiment in England that eventually went to Gallipoli but turned it down so he could stay with the men he had joined up and trained with. It was a lucky decision on his part, as time was to prove. Who knew at that time the disaster that would unfold at Gallipoli?
As for the vast majority of my youth I came home after school to see on the TV the US dead coming home from Vietnam, the families that suffered the deaths of their sons or in other cases daughters with the nursing corps or Red Cross; as well as the live-action shots. I even remember when they ran out of coffins for the dead. I watched as well from the outside the race riots, peace movement, women's liberation movement, all which affected us here in Canada in one way or another. The first major fight I had with my father was over the Kent State University massacre. This is when I first realized that the world he knew was no longer the world he knew; nor would be again. Also at this time I began to consider leaving school and travelling to North Dakota, where I would to enlist in the US military to prove my worth in combat. What stopped me was that the veterans that I had coffee with on those Saturday mornings would not want me to do this nor would they approve of the sacrifice. I thought I owed them at least this much for their sacrifice.
I had promised my grandfather before his death that I would keep the faith and remember those that had died in not only the recent wars but those of all wars. For life is the ultimate sacrifice that a human being can give to anything that he or she believes in. In death we give up all that we have and all that we will ever have or be in life. We give up our future as well as our family’s future. Our family's and friends' hopes, aspirations and desires for us in life. The ultimate sacrifice, when all is considered. This is partly why most veterans feel bad that they survived and their comrades didn’t. The sense that they didn’t or don’t measure up to what they saw in those that died. Those things we value in people, goodness, caring, education . . . the things that ability allows one to achieve and contribute to a better society. So I take my children to attend Remembrance Day services. I never work on that day. I choose a memorial that no one usually goes to so as to make the point more meaningful to them. It's strange how few people show up to remember until there is a conflict that touches them. Then again it is understandable with Canadian business being more interested in profits then in honouring our veterans, and complaining about lost profits if their workers are afforded the time off or day off to attend services. I know of no businesses in Canada that fully support their employees as members of the Canadian Forces Reserves. At the same time Canadian businesses are first in line to get military contracts and benefits. One would think that if a country truly cared about its peoples' sacrifice in war that it would make a national holiday of temperance.
One asks what good comes from these wars in our world over the generations of mankind. As long as man desires to dominate each other and evil prevails, man will always need to police and defend. As for learning, war provides a fertile breeding ground for knowledge, technology, science, new medical advancements and manufacturing achievements. All leap generations ahead to the point that would never be thought of in a fraction of time if not for war. I believe that we as human beings can make the same accomplishments by finding common ground; but by also at the same time respecting all life as well as each other would greatly help in eliminating the need for war. Only from knowledge and understanding, not ignorance, can one respect others' cultures, beliefs and thinking.
In Canada we have multiculturalism. A country whose society is free from racism. More than a matter of principle, this is Canada’s vision. To bring together people of all backgrounds—-ethnic, racial, and religious—-together to build a society where one’s heritage is a source of pride and inspiration. Common ground, that promotes pride in oneself and respect for who we are, where we come from and how that makes us who we are. That is what we as individuals bring to the table when we as contribute to the development of our nation.
Canada is a country that believes in freedom, justice, liberty and the rule of law. Over its existence Canada has defended these beliefs on behalf of others that could no longer or were unable to defend themselves, as well as defending itself from attacks and invasion. I don't know the solution to the problem of war. I just know one thing. If man has to choose war, it had better be as a last resort and only for the best and noblest reasons that mankind holds dear. For there is really only one truth: all life is sacred and deserves our respect, no matter how trying the circumstances. Man can change and will. It is a matter of time. To quote Milton from his work Paradise Regained: “To whom our Saviour answer thus returned: - “All things are best fulfilled in their due time; and time there is for all things, truth hath said.”
James R. Jenson
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 5, 2005]
Of war stories the one that sticks most in my mind is my grandfather who is from scotland and served in the gordon highlanders in WW2. He is fiercely patriotic and said 'never smile at a man in a kilt'. Of his many war stories the mere insanity of the battles sticks most in my mind. He was never an officer but was proud of his service, and his fathers before him. Whether it was the service or the answering of his home country's call is never clear. The battle stories always begin with the whistle, when you heard the whistle you knew what was coming. The officers, who always stood in the back, had their pistols in their other hand to shoot any who disobeyed commands or attempted to flee.
The drummers and pipers then rose from the back and began passing all the men who then followed them. They, of course, were the first shot, and the mere insanity of it all still perplexes me. When the pipers fell a man was expected to drop his weapon and begin piping, for this reason he said "I dina learn to play the pipes"
While proud of their service I have always noted the strict adherence to the fact that those wars were righteous, while current ones are not. I don't quite agree, but far be it for me to argue with somebody else who now opposes war.
Canada, however, is not that beacon of anti war so portrayed. We committed genocide on the native population right up to the fifties, and we now export the trappings of war all over the world. All of it is subsidized by our government. This is the current 'rule of law'. Canada is no peacemaker, that must be understood. Canadians, like most in the world, overwhelmingly condemn the use of violence. However, we are see that our 'rule of law' is to ignore our wishes and obey the americans who want us to spend more on weaponry to help in wars of commerce. This we do unquestioningly in Haiti and Afghanistan as well as previously in Bosnia in wars we call 'peacemaking' and are not sanctioned by the United Nations.
This is not the soldiers fault. Soldiers do have responsibilities and rights however. A soldier can't be asked to do something that goes against the Geneva conventions or the human rights enshrined in the united nations. WHen they do they are culpable, we know germans and italians were executed at Nurembourg for opening dikes. This means that soldiers can be tried for those current aggressions, the best gift we can give them is to demand they are sent home and are given duties in defence of the land.
Canada is a country, I agree. However countries are land-masses and the last time I checked MY hallucination, land- masses do not think, nor do the inhabitants of them think as one.
“Why these men joined up, most answered duty to God, Country and Monarchy as well as loyalty to ones country men.
More glittering generalities and the belief in them took far too many to their grave. ON BOTH SIDES!
As for the rest of it I won’t go there.
I too observe November 11, but for entirely different reasons.
I observe it with a pain in my heart I wish on no-one.
All those lives given up so freely and based on what? Based on lies
The arms manufactures have stock to move!
War is “GOOD FOR BUSINESS”
---
Dave Ruston
What people should remember is that it is not countries, or nations, who fight each other, usually for the reasons of energy control benefiting self appointed ruling classes, but monarchs, dictators, governments and priests. The vast majority of people just want to live their lives in peace and quiet, but are hyped up with usually religious propaganda that they must go and kill their neighbours.
Through human history, millions have been sent to their deaths on scaling ladders, climbing the walls of the castles of neighbouring lords and now for the benefit of multinational corporations, always pretending that it is for the nation's interest and those who fall will be sitting at God's right hand that very day. At least this was what our padres told us. On both sides, as we found out later!
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
To most of my knowledge those 'wars' are just, although obviously every action which occurs within them are not. On 60 minutes the prosectur at Guatanamo Bay was trying to justify everything the President and country because 'there's a war going on' even though the country refuses to call it a war when it comes to the Geneva convention. Although people don't like to call it a war it's no coincidence that the documentary on Burnt Church is called "Is the Crown at War with us?" At Kahnesatake you could use the word 'siege' if you like, but clearly it was war and I have no problem in claiming that the natives were fighting a 'just war'. Usually combatants are so outgunned and outmatched we prefer to call them 'terrorists' or 'special interests' so that we don't have to look at the validity of their claims.
Currently, the people of Iraq are occupied by an enemy power that is clearly robbing them of their resources and has no real interest in their well being. For a person or a village to pick up a gun in defense of their land and family I would call a 'just cause'. We sit on our easy chairs and define it by different terms and issues and the 'bigger picture' but for the person/village picking up the gun there is only one side to choose-that opposing the occupier. We will forever label them as 'al queda' whether they are in that organization or not, muslim or not, or even believe in the actions of that organization. We saw the creation of the Khmer Rouge in big part because peasants were tired of being slaughtered in their villages and took up arms against who was doing the most killing. History recognizes them only as the political entity with certain beliefs, practises, and actions, yet that means little to the villagers who were forced to purchase guns and start defending themselves against aggressors.
Europeans and their descendants have their own idea of 'war' as it was an empire and had interests to protect and our study of war typically comes from their bickering among themselves. Because a monarchy was bent of extending their power doesn't mean that person being attacked has no right to a just defense. When the soviet union moved into czechoslovakia, the czechs had every 'right' to oppose such a move.
Likewise I would state that Venezuela is 'justified' in being far more aggressive towards the states than they are, we know how the states operates and what is going on there. I obviously don't recommend they cut off oil or anything, but we know from Guatamala, Nicaragua, Panama, etc., that when the US wants something, it doesn't play softball.
This is part of the reason I don't support CAP or any party that goes hard line on export issues, I've read the history of the US in Canada and the US is not one to take political changes lying down. To explain that further I think the democratic changes need to be made first-namely becoming a democracy. I believe that would solve a lot of problems and if you are going to oppose an elephant you need to have democracy and the people on your side. I could well imagine the 'accurate propaganda' that would cover the media in the states. We have a government controlled by a minority, no elected officials, no rights, etc.
The wars of history and of what you're writing about are attempts by certain sectors to acquire wealth and resource control and by others to oppose and protect it. All wealth comes from the land and sea, therefore, the control of the land and its peoples has always been the main purpose of wars. Including those you describe. I can see the justification of defending one's legitimate property, as opposed to colonizations, huge wealth and dictatorial rights usurped by a few. My experience in war hasn't made me a pacifist, as anybody would find out if they'd tried to steal our possessions, or push us around, even at my age. I don't think I would have survived under Saddam Hussein, but if I were an Iraqi now, I would do my best to oppose the present resource control dictated occupation in any way.
But, apart from individual greed and criminal intentions, some individuals seem to be born with, the vast majority of wars at any level are caused by leaders whipping up hysteria against others to rob them of their lands and possessions and much, if not most of the time, claiming divine guidance. The colonization and genocide of the Americas is the best example. Hitler and his nazis also claimed divine orders to support their racial and land grabbing theories, supported by the Christian Churches, now hotly denied, in spite of the evidence. Even the SS had about 4000 padres of the 3 major denominations, with officer ranks, exhorting the troops, supplied the the Churches without any opposition.
In my experience, the same people will gravitate to the top under every known ideology. E.g. Our big capitalists could be big nazis, or communists, just as the big communists of the past are now the big capitalists. The former Marxist economists are now the biggest neoclassical, global market economists. The same with religious fanatics and preachers. The Christian fundamentalists of North America could easily be Muslim fundamentalists. This is why I decided and wrote that no politician, or priest, or in the present case, economist, will ever again send me to kill, or be killed, for the resource control demands of some self appointed aristocracy. Now called multinational corporations.
And these are the people who always come up with the theories and have the capacity to cause mass hysteria againts others and always with the intent of resource/energy theft. This could be at the village, or national level. This is why they now control the mass media and this is how wars are caused at any level. How this vicious circle can be stopped, I really don't know ? On the other hand I have seen a lot of turnarounds in history, almost amounting to miracles and hope it will happen in this world one day.
On the subject of arms production and sales, all so called free trade agreements exclude "defence production", opening the door for unlimited arms production and export.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_General_Strike</a><br />
"After World War I many Canadian soldiers returned home to find few opportunities. Wages and working conditions were dismal and labour regulations were mostly non-existent" <p>---<br>RickW
It's dangerous generalizing history too much, politics and economics CAN go hand in hand but don't necessarily. A white person can be racist against a black person based on ideology not economy, the same is true of nations.
World War One is a good example of that. If I had to summarize I'd say that politics starts wars while economics keeps up their momentum. When 9/11 happened the US gave Afghanistan an ultimatum, much as Austria-Hungary gave Serbia an ultimatum which they assumed would be rejected due to sovereignty. I'd suggest the US did a similar thing in Afghanistan. However, to keep functioning wars need soldiers, and people don't join wars based on economy. We can state that 'we know better' now, but if we were the same people, with the same experiences during the same time obviously we'd do the same thing.
The balkans still are a good example, when the US directed NATO into serbia they were essentially abetting war. In Canada it was necessary to use the media to 'whip canadians up' so it would be supported. However, it was not economics that put Canada in that situation, it was Canada's membership in NATO. Many of these treaties and organizations stipulate that an attack on one member is an attack on all. As far as I can discover Canada gained little economic advantage during that war, and was cited by the United Nations and has many soldiers cited by international agencies as being war criminals.
On the subject of WW1, while "Austria-Hungary" is being mentioned as the cause, Hungary was very much a colony of Austria and when the Austrian government under Count Leopold Berchtold manufactured the reasons and declared war, the Hungarian government under Count Istvan Tisza resigned in protest. Yet, in the war, Hungary lost 750,000 soldiers from a population of 21 million, the largest losses on percentage figures and in the Treaty of Versailles, 2/3 of its 1000 year territories.
I mention this for the record, to show that if conditions for workers in the so called victorious countries, like Canada, were so atrocious to cause the general strike, one can only imagine what conditions were in the loser countries, virtually creating Hitler and other demagogues and the conditions for these crazies to bring on WW2.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
The most significant thing to me about the current Iraq 'war' was the live pictures during "shock and awe" of people driving about and Baghdad city bus service functioning. As you say, the vast amjority of people...
Don
---
Don
Calgary, AB
---
Dave Ruston
Quite right. But why is it that those who DO risk life-and-limb in war are so summarily rejected, not only by the politicos, but the general population as a whole, when the ordeal is done? The lure of Bolshevism when one is out of work, is suffering from the trauma that a civilian could never hope to understand, receives little if any compensation for up to four grinding years, and is scorned by a population that only months previously welcomed them home with open arms, is easily understandable. How many police constables were military just months previous to the general Strike?
---
RickW
and when they are told they, like the American and Canadian trolls here, won't believe it anyway
""One of the well-concealed truths about Iraq and Saddam Hussein was his switching to
Euros for the sales of Iraqi oil. This was the behind-the-scenes move that put Saddam in
the crosshairs of the Bush Crime Family. He was once an ally and a known CIA asset who
became an enemy when he dared to go against protocol. Weeks later, the USA was
suddenly at war with Iraq. Since this so-called war on terrorism is really about oil money
and encroaching fascism,..."
Broadly defined there is and has been a "war" going on for hundreds of years- the problem is most folks haven't gotten their mind around that fact because it seems Preposterous.
"But wait" folks said the carny to the mark, "There's more!"
In the preface of her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (pgs. xvii-xviii),
Iserbyt defines the onslaught upon the minds of our children as a new and different type
of war. While she does not use the specific term, I contend that this new type of war
belongs under the general heading of Information Wars. The following bullet-points from
Iserbyt’s book represent the primary methodology that has been used against our children
in the fighting of this Info War:
• One fought using psychological methods.
• A one-hundred year war.
• A different, more deadly war than any other in which our country has been involved.
• A war about which the average American hasn’t the foggiest idea.
Will You Survive The Coming Financial Crash? 4
© 2005 Kent Daniel Bentkowski
Iserbyt goes on to state the following about why Americans do not understand what has
been happening to their children without their consent:
“The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret
--- in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The
wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools.” She then lists the
three primary strategies, which have proven to be quite effective, especially in that they
are never explained to any of the students (or their parents) as part of their actual public
education curriculum:
• Hegelian Dialectic (common ground, consensus and compromise).
• Gradualism (two steps forward, one step backward).
• Semantic Deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).
John Taylor Gatto, who was a New York City public school teacher for thirty years,
becoming both New York City Teacher of the Year and New York State Teacher of the Year
a total of four times combined, had the following to say on pgs. xxxv-xxxvi of his
groundbreaking 1992 book entitled Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of
Compulsory Schooling:
“I began to wonder, reluctantly, whether it was possible that being in school itself was
what was dumbing [the students] down. Was it possible I had been hired not to enlarge
children’s power, but to diminish it? That seemed crazy on the face of it, but slowly I
began to realize that the bells and the confinement, the crazy sequences, the agesegregation,
the lack of privacy, the constant surveillance, and all the rest of the national
curriculum of schooling were designed exactly as if someone had set out to prevent
children from learning how to think and act, to coax them into addiction and dependent
behavior.”
Gatto further explained on pg. 154 of his 2003 book, The Underground History of
American Education, the reasons why someone wanted the children dumbed down:
“Faced with the problem of dangerous educated adults, what could be more natural than a
factory to produce safely stupefied children? You’ve already seen that the system has only
limited regard for brainy people, so nothing is lost productively in dumbing down and
leveling the mass population, even providing a dose of the same for ‘gifted and talented’
children. And much can be gained in social efficiency. What motive could be more
‘humane’ than the wish to defuse the social dynamite positive science was endlessly
casting off as a byproduct of its’ success?”
Further evidence of this agenda to dumb-down the population is found within the pages of
a May 1979 Bilderberg Group internal white paper that had been leaked to the public in
1986, which has become generally known as Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars. Because the
Bilderberg Group is an international group, this document was likely the creation of the
Tavistock Institute, which itself does study and implement the psychological programming
of large societal groups. This 56-page report describes the many ways by which large
societal groups of people can be programmed, and manipulated by the analysis of
Will You Survive The Coming Financial Crash? 5
© 2005 Kent Daniel Bentkowski
household systems models and something called economic shock testing, which on pg. 34,
is described in the following manner:
“Economic engineers study the behavior of the economy and the consumer public by
carefully selecting a staple commodity such as beef, coffee, gasoline, or sugar, and then
cause a sudden change or shock in its’ price or availability, thus kicking everybody’s
budget and buying habits out of shape.”
The summary that appears on pgs. 47-48 provide chilling details as to the way in which
larger society is regarded by the global elite. These details explain why basic education
has been withheld from larger society, which is explainable once Albert Ellis’ definition of
intellectual fascism is applied. Simply put, intellectual fascism is the belief held by the
global elite that there are certain groups of people who should not be educated, because
they are inferior in some way.
This group of people has been variously referred to as useless eaters, useless feeders,
useless breeders, and unwashed minions. Secret societies refer to this group of people,
the uninitiated, as the profane and the vulgar. Yet another derogatory term used to
describe ordinary citizens is human capital, which is used primarily to describe human
beings whose only purpose is generate wealth for the upper class elite, a group no larger
than 5% of the total population. Most recently, however, this term has begun to be used
to describe school children. Using the term human capital to describe people implies
ownership, suggesting that our lives are much less free than we have been led to believe.
Still another example of this way of thinking is the term human resources, which is used
in the corporate world. Most workers have been told the exoteric (or public) meaning,
which is a corporate department that meets the needs of the workers. After all, this is
where one goes when they want to request their vacation, change their health insurance,
or enroll in the company retirement and profit-sharing plans. These same people were
never told the true esoteric (or private) meaning, which is they are the human resources
of the company, which again implies ownership of these workers by the corporation.
Read the following quotations from the Bilderberg Group report, and see if you can
address the question of which population group is being referred to by the mind-set that
created the report. The amount of behind-the-scenes research that these private thinktank
type groups have undertaken are stunning in that there has been so little information
leaked to the public about such projects. While most people attempt to deny that such
research is conducted on an ongoing basis, the work of the tireless Internet research
community has shined a light upon these dark black-budget projects.
When speaking of the Bilderberg Group in specificity, it has been the work of Jim Tucker,
Daniel Estulin, and Tony Gosling that has opened up many people’s awareness of this
group that acts in their own self-interest, to the tremendous detriment of every
government of every country represented at the Bilderberg Group annual conferences.
Check the Bibliography section at the end of this paper for the most-complete Internet
copy of this document, which include the systems diagrams and economic formulas. The
webpage that contains this document supposes that the document is from the Central
Intelligence Agency. However, there is wording in the document to the effect that 1979
represented the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Quiet War. The most significant event that
occurred twenty-five years earlier was the first meeting of an unnamed international
group in the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland on the weekend of May 29-31, 1954.
This international consortium came to be known as the Bilderberg Group, the group whom
I believe authored the document:
SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS
May 1, 1979
SECURITY (pg. 3):
This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent. Such a writing must be secured
from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be recognized as a technically formal declaration
of domestic war. Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of
great power, and without the full knowledge of the public, uses such knowledge and
methodology for economic conquest --- it must be understood that a state of domestic
warfare exists between said person or group of persons, and the public.
The solution of today’s problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no
agonizing over religious, moral, or cultural values.
DIVERSION: THE PRIMARY STRATEGY (pgs. 47-48):
Experience has proven that the simplest method of securing a silent weapon and gaining
control of the public is to keep the public undisciplined and ignorant of basic systems
principles on the one hand, while keeping them confused, disorganized, and distracted
with matters of no real importance.
This is achieved by:
1. Disengaging their minds, sabotaging their mental activities, by providing a lowquality
program of public education in mathematics, logic, systems design, and
economics, and by discouraging technical creativity.
2. Engaging their emotions, increasing their self-indulgence and their indulgence in
emotional and physical activities, by:
a. Unrelenting emotional affronts and attacks (mental and emotional rape) by
way of a constant barrage of sex, violence, and wars in the media ---
especially on the TV and in the newspapers.
b. Giving them what they desire --- in excess --- junk food for thought --- and
by depriving them of what they really need.
3. Rewriting history and law and subjecting the public to the deviant creation, thus
being able to shift their thinking from personal needs to highly fabricated outside
priorities.
These preclude their interest in and discovery of the silent weapons of social automation
technology. The general rule is that there is profit in confusion; the more confusion, the
more profit. Therefore, the best approach is to create problems and then offer the
solutions [emphasis mine].""
Kent Daniel Bentkowski
Diogenes