Why I have Unlinked from The Tweed Renegades

Why I have Unlinked from The Tweed Renegades

In Australia and New Zealand the 25th of April is ANZAC day, the day we commemorate our war dead and honour our veterans . It is a day on which patriotism is highly prized by most people. ANZAC Day is also regarded by most as the most important day of the year, of course there are other days but Australia Day for example is regarded as simply a holiday. ANZAC Day is not just a holiday it is a solemn day. 60,000 went to the Dawn Service in Melbourne, it was 4 degrees and starts at 6am. Then at 9am there is a parade of veterans that lasts for over 3 hours and then a memorial service. 

This year after a long while i heard criticism of ANZAC Day, of course nothing escapes criticism. But this year I read the idea that to commemorate ANZAC Day is not really patriotic and I read it on a site I link to. I no longer link to them and I want to let you know why. The site and the article in question is Tweed Renegades in this article the Renegades quote an article written by someone else "Makows article begins with the charged question "If central bankers start all the wars, for profit and to degrade humanity to advance the New World Order, are veterans heroes - or mercenaries and dupes?" ". Makow goes on to say " War is the principal means by which Lucifer's disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, "change the world." ". In other words yes veterans are mercenaries and dupes. And what do the Renegades have to say about this? To quote them "Brillant!". They are in full agreement with this.

But I am not. In fact I find it factually wrong, not to mention distasteful. Here we have yet another Conspiracy Theory, if only the Bankers weren't evil bastards the world would be at peace. It must give great comfit to some to believe that all they need to do is get rid of central bankers and universal peace erupts. But it's not true and Traditional Conservatives should live in this world not in a fictitious one. So far I have only made a claim so let me go further. 

Not a single war has been started by central bankers because we don't need bankers to start wars. Wars are fought for two broad reasons, human nature and conflict. By conflict I mean there is a real reason to fight. Many wars start over what seem small even strange events but when there is no reason to fight the fighting stops. Much more border incidents happen then most people realize. I remember reading one Christmas Day in the late 1990's about a border incident whereby a platoon of Papuan New Guinean soldiers fought a battle against a police unit of the Soloman Islands. The Solomon Islands don't any military, but it didn't stop them shooting at people. The article said the battle lasted hours but no casualties were reported. What makes this matter even stranger is as the name suggests, the Solomon Islands are islands and they have no land border with anyone. Central bankers seem a bad fit here. 

But as I was writing that I thought about the internal war fought in Papua New Guinea in the 1980's-90's on the island of Bouganville. Bouganville is important to the world economy for one reason, copper. Copper is a mineral that is not found very often but when it is found there tends to be alot of it. This means that a copper mine is more than just a mine, it is a strategic asset. But the huge copper mine on Bouganville closed in the late 1980's because of a separatist movement, the Bouganvillean Revolutionary Army (BRA). They not only wanted to be independent but they believed that Westerners had taken from them and given nothing back. Turns out that wasn't true, as the islanders had the highest standard of living in the South Pacific, but after the mine closed even life expectancy went down by more than a decade.  

Now the question is why would central bankers want this war fought? Afterall how do they benefit if the copper mines close? Actually you can make an argument for them wanting this war. But then you find that while some central banks would benefit, others would suffer. So it seems that even here you have a conflict of interest, if you'll excuse the pun. Now central banks are fighting each other. If they started the war of course. But the BRA didn't need central bankers as they had their own reasons for fighting. As did the Government. In fact there is no need for central bankers here at all.

Now lets return to the Solomon Islands, because in the 2000's the Solomon Islands turned into the Somalia of the South Pacific and became a failed state. The only reason the Solomon Islands didn't have a civil war was because no one was competent enough. So instead the Government collapsed and it became a place where being from the wrong ethnic group could get you killed. Fortunately this has a happy ending because Australia, New Zealand and the other South Pacific countries formed RAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands) and both peace and civil Government have been restored. It has only taken a decade and a number of deaths, but it has been achieved.

I know men who have served as Peace Keepers in the Solomon Islands, in East Timor and in Somalia. I know men who have served in Afghanistan, Vietnam. My Grandfather and my Step Father served in WWII. My Great Great Uncle was killed near Amiens in 1918. Were these men mercenaries or dupes?

The Tweed Renegades wrote a second article to clarify the first article. At first it seems to repute much that was written in the first. For example "Fighting for one's country in a just war is an honourable sacrifice, worthy of tremendous respect.". But there it is, "just war", remember central bankers start all the wars and I'm guessing that fighting in a war started by the central bankers is not a "just war". I might be wrong but I really don't think I am. Sadly it simply reinforced what had been written in the first.

"The saddest part is, if Milton had invoked the spirit of the ANZACS to call for the immediate nuking of Syria, the strongest condemnation we'd have received from the right would have been a mild admonition and perhaps a call for the patient exploration of diplomatic channels before the last resort of military action." No people would not have thought that, they would have thought you were a total and utter nutter. 

This is not the first time I have been unhappy with Tweed Renegades, but this time they went too far. When I wrote to tell them that I was taking down my link to them, they were courteous and wrote "we've got no issue with differences of opinion as long as the person is still on our wavelength.". But we are not on the same wavelength are we? Calling those who serve their country mercenaries and dupes is not "tremendous respect". I do not link to Communist or Fascist sites because while they may from time to time be right about something I disagree with them, not a little bit or by degrees but absolutely. I also absolutely disagree with a Conservative not being a Patriot, if you are not on your own countries side who's side are you on?

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Another Article You Might Like?

A Lack of Perception