World War One Commemorations: Its an Abomination to call Sacred, Soil Taken from WW1 Battlefields

Mick Hall with a piece that initially featured on Organized Rage on 2 December 2013. His grandfather, along with other family members fought in WW1, one of whom was only 15 when he signed up.'

The Sacred Soil from Flanders battlefields being loaded on to a Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery Gun Carriage It is difficult to believe anyone would be fool or wicked enough to call hundreds of sacks of dirt "sacred soil," when the earth in question was taken from places where hundreds of thousands of young men in the prime of life had their lives stolen. Not least because it's the type of thing a fascist government might do when pontificating about the glorious dead of the Third Reich.


It is even more incomprehensible that this dirt was placed in prettified sacks and waved off from Belgium by innocent school children and shipped to the UK on a Naval warship. Which sailed up the River Thames and docked in the pool of London alongside HMS Belfast, where it received all the ruritanian pomp and circumstance the British military can muster.

Yet this is what occurred last week when these bags of dirt, which were 'allegedly' taken from seventy World War One battlefields, arrived in London to become the focal point of a so called sacred garden within Wellington Barracks, which will mark the 100th anniversary of the start of WW1 in 1914. If you think this obscenity through, imagine the outcry were the guardians of Auschwitz-Birkenau to call the bloodstained earth of that awful place 'sacred soil.' The only reason it still stands is as a warning from history for future generations. Sacred it is not!

As far as WW1 is concerned the only anniversary worth commemorating is the day that bloody and worthless conflagration ended and thus it has always been, until now that is.

What next will the coalition government suggest - the military selling small bags of 'sacred soil' to those who come to pay their respects in Whitehall at the national Cenotaph?

Never mind during, and after World War One, apart for VIP's, and there were few of those in the front lines, the families were never given an opportunity to repatriate the bodies of their loved ones to the UK. They were told the numbers were far too numerous for that and they were to be buried within the war graves cemeteries that litter northern France, Belgium and Turkey. Many came to doubt the name on the headstones would match with the body entombed below. How could it have been otherwise when many of the bodies were blown into smithereens, left to rot in no mans land, or buried in mass graves after the failure of latest wheeze the donkeys had to end the war?

The First World War, also known erroneously as the Great War, is seen as the first international conflict on a global scale. Millions of soldiers and civilians from 50 plus countries had their lives stolen during this imperialistic bloodletting.

Despite what the British government and military would have people believe, throughout the world the name ‘Flanders Fields’ is not looked upon as something to be proud of, but is associated with unprecedented human suffering and mass murder on an industrial scale. A period in history when Europe's political class and military caste betrayed a whole generation of European youth.

That today's Tory and Liberal-Democrat politicians waited until all the survivors of WW1 were dead, before they decided to spend millions over four years commemorating WW1, tells us all we need to know about these so called victory celebrations. For if still alive, those lions led by donkeys would never have stayed silent while another generation of political dross celebrated upon their dead comrades wounds.

If some readers feel I am being a little harsh by calling this jamboree 'victory celebrations,' how come beyond the ruling elites, no one from Germany, Austria, or Turkey, have been invited to this so called commemoration? If there were to be any 100 year commemoration it would have to be organised by all the nations which took part in the mass slaughter, but such an option was not even considered.

The poet Rudyard Kipling was willingly used at the start of the war as a propagandist to whip up a patriotic frenzy by the Coalition governments of Asquith and Lloyd George, which actively encouraged young men to march off to war with a smile on their faces, oblivious to what lay ahead.

It was only when his own 18 year old son John was slaughtered in the Battle of Loos, having spent just two days in the front line, Kipling realised what he and his generation had done. He summed up his own guilt and that of a whole generation of politicians, military men, and parents when he wrote after his son's death:

"If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied."
This! This is the abomination which today's donkeys are asking the people of the UK to celebrate for the next four years. Shame on anyone who abandons the dead of World War One, and is willingly used in a propaganda exercise designed to whitewash aware the incompetence and crimes of the ruling classes of 1914, whether they were the politicians, senior officers in the military, businessmen, media barons or high financiers who in 1914 took Britain to war on a prayer and an imperialistic whim.


  1. It really was mass murder on an industrial scale. All for the benefit of the ruling elite. Last week on the news they were trying to hold prince harry up as some sort of hero due to his short time in Afghan. Miles away from danger and protected by the SAS. Could not possibly risk the life of the tax scroungers but the working class cannon fodder can go get blown up.

  2. The innocent dead soldiers of world war one-[ or any war ]-

    There is very rarely a innocent soldier-he joined up he got trained in the use of weapons he
    wanted to kill and he killed-[ there were very few who refused to fight or joined the stretcher
    bearers so they did not have to shoot anyone- no matter what we read what we know what we have seen there will always be a new generation of 16-17 year olds who will kill for a flag and will machine gun because they can-we hear about the few who have mental problems later on in life but we never hear of the many who survived and loved every minute of their war-

    War is hell but the youth are not listening-there will be more wars-
    and we can blame those in charge as much as we want-but the killing
    rage/love is in us-

  3. Mick,

    sorry for running another piece in tandem with this. I messed up the scheduling. I prefer to run each article at a separate time.

  4. Interesting read Mick. War is business and for those behind it - who often finance both sides - it is great business. You aptly describe the usury of ordinary men, whipped into a patriotic fervour by those serving the interests of the elite, and sent out to die by "terraced thousand". Pitiful. It continues today. I was in Bury St. Edmunds on a job a few months back and met quite a few squaddies and indeed US airforce in the bars. All of them had the attitude that there was nothing wrong with their presence in Afghanistan. They seemed conditioned to do what they were bid. I thought to myself it's little wonder the world is the way it is

  5. 'Lions led by donkeys' very appropriately applied, but it could be applied to so many conflicts
    I couldn't believe they actually labelled that soil sacred and transported it to England.
    It was all about giving latter day politicans a bit of kudos and glory on the back of so much misery.

  6. For all the truth about WWI being a foolishly conducted war, I can't see how it can be said the Allies should not have fought it.

    Germany was not ruled by reasonable men, much less moral men. World conquest was part of their world-view, and they had the technical knowledge and determination of mind to achieve it - if not resisted with all their enemies could throw at them. Al this was flagged up years prior to the war by intellectuals like Emil Reich, but they were not taken seriously. German aspirations were taken as silly bombast, not the deadly delusion that was all too sincere.

    And it only takes one side to make war the better choice.

  7. Wolfsbane-

    " Germany was not ruled by reasonable men "

    And neither was England or Ireland-

    " Much less by moral men "

    The same can be said of those who ruled England and Ireland "

    " World conquest was part of their
    World-view "

    Who Germany-England did not need a
    view has they had already conquered three quarters of the known world-

    The English and German crown leaders were still alive when the guns stopped on eleven-eleven-eleven-unlike millions of their subjects who were buried under the muds of flanders mons ypres etc-

  8. Germany offered armistice in 1917 but the banking interests behind the war kept it going - for profit. That's the root cause of so many of these conflicts. Check no further than the House of Rothschild

  9. Sean,

    Didn't they fund both sides during both world wars?

  10. Check out I.G. Farben Frankie. One of the most interesting facts about this Rothschild-controlled company is that despite the fact it was the largest armaments manufacturer of the German war-machine mysteriously it was rarely targeted by Allied bombing raids and sustained only a reported 15 percent damage-rate by wars-end. The father of Bush and Bush II had a close relationship with the company. Big business funds both sides and gets rich, one of the oldest manipulations of the current world order

  11. Guys, I'm not justifying any of this world's ruling elites, just pointing out that it only takes one nation to start a war that everyone one else wants to avoid.

    Did the ruling class of the British, French, Russians, etc. want WWI? Absolutely not. Did it benefit any of them? No. It bankrupted them.

    So why did they engage? Because Germany forced it on them.

    I used to think Hitler's crazy ideas of a master-race, etc . were his own invention - until I read what the German leaders were saying in the 19th C. It was all there. Hitler and his colleagues were just carrying on the worldview that had pervaded the German nation, rulers and people, of a previous generation.

    The power of a poisonous ideology handed on to the next generation, disguised as patriotism.

  12. Throughout World War One the German Rothschild's loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschild's loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschild's loaned money to the French. They all profited immensely. The ruling classes were bankrupted? They became even richer, war serves no other purpose. I suppose it depends on who you believe to be the ruling class but the twentieth century was not labelled 'the Age of Rothschild' without good reason. The only ruling class I can think of who suffered were the Russian Royal Family who were wiped out totally by the Bolshevik's - who went on to put in place the most savage yet lethal killing machine that committed to genocide over 60 million Christians in the Soviet gulag's. The crime of Tsar Nicholas II and his family? His refusal to grant control of Russian Central Banking to the Rothschilds. Every last one of them were slaughtered, making good on a promise to wipe out this dynasty dating back to the Congress of Vienna at the time of Waterloo and Napoleon - for those who know their history a key date in the emergence of the Rothschild dynasty from powerful banking interest to master of commerce and finance. They are the hand behind the traditional thrones of Europe, the inner-sanctums of the Vatican and of course the world financial system run out of New York, Paris and the City of London. Germany offered armistice in 1917 at a time when no foreign soldier had stepped foot on her soil, given the stalemate in the trenches of France it was looking like a done deal until the British were told American backing was coming if they held out. At a price of course - that price being the Balfour Declaration leading eventually to the situation that exists today in Palestine. We rarely hear of this Rothschild connection outside of dissident circles because they own the media

  13. Sean Bres,

    Stalin was a power obssessed tyrant but the millions he killed weren't targetted because they were Christians per se; enough athiets and Jews were sent to the gulag simply because they might have been an obstacle in the way of his ambitions. And if it suited he promoted Christians to high office; he did likewise with Jews.

  14. We are in the stages of a one world government, one world banking system being formed and it is the elites mentioned sitting behind it. War is money no doubt. Control is also money.

  15. Sean,

    I googled IG Farben last night and watch a few documentaries on them. I already knew the OBL connection and George W. I didn't know how rotten the Bush family were/was/still are..

    If anyone can, please stop the world and let me off.

    We are meant to be civilized:!!! The dogs in the street have better maners.

  16. Sean, I hear you about the elite behind the elite. I'm not convinced that Alec Jones has it right, but I bear it in mind. The danger is that it could come down to naked anti-semitism.

    But the facts I'm pointing to are that the up-front elites were bankrupted. WWI may well have put them in hoc to the Rothschilds, but in hoc they were. The massive loss of wealth and manpower to the nations was disastrous.