https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53811228

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/missing-the-point-of-vj-day-anniversary

Resistance Books is Australia’s leading publisher of Marxist and socialist literature. It specialises in books and pamphlets of interest to the antiracist, environmental, feminist, international solidarity, labour, socialist and general progressive movements. We believe that in the fight for social justice activists need not only information but a scientific theory.

https://www.resistancebooks.com/about-resistance-books/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/city-rocked-12-hours-violence-22566818

 

https://twitter.com/boulezian/status/1281144994024296449

Replying to
I love how his avi is still him on a fucking building site in hi viz like a contemporary british chancellor...

structure function fundamentals finish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land

band of credulous sycophants  big band sound

Boulezian Band

Dr D J Vernon

People seem to think because Rishi fucking Sunak is easy on the eye, he's not an evil cunt.

 

https://twitter.com/boulezian/status/1245657980189552640

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/14-august/features/features/atomic-bomb-the-shock-of-a-victory-so-gained

metre musicality 3 / 243,000

ethical depth

1/ 160,000,000

Cambridge University excellence stupidity

1 / 2,360,000

Rilke Kafka

1,070,000

Seamus Heaney criticism

2 / 551,000

Seamus Heaney success

2 / 758, 000

There are no words strong enough for those racists who voted for Johnson's Tories and destroyed the prospects of so many young people.

 

https://www.monolithic.org/blogs/presidents-sphere/r-value-fairy-tale-the-myth-of-insulation-values

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53741180

Chris Mason, political correspondent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53736078

https://www.steynonline.com/

https://www.steynonline.com/804/a-lesson-from-luke

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/05/the-humiliation-of-western-history/

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003/1/why-the-west

 

 

http://euanmearns.com/the-real-cost-of-offshore-wind/

https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Imported%20Publication%20Docs/Barley%20growth%20guide%20130718.pdf

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/04/former-bishops-of-lincoln-turned-a-blind-eye-to-abuse-claims-investigation-finds/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcP_Y8Hj6N4

http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/residents-list-top-three-issues-2491056

 

http://www.sheffield-gb.com/Sheffield_Made_Knives/Sheffield_knives_by_A__Wright_/Pen_Knives_-_Folding_Knives/pen_knives_-_folding_knives.html

http://www.steelcitycutlery.com/pocketknife.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/05/crisis-upon-crisis-blast-rocks-a-lebanon-already-on-its-knees

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53654644

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53390108

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_Mo

https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2014/03/in-psychiatrists-chair.html?m=0

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53656852

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ZHH770WLs

 

 

 

Jeder derselben will immer seine Freiheit mißbrauchen, wenn er Keinen über sich hat, der nach den Gesetzen über ihn Gewalt ausübt. Das höchste Oberhaupt soll aber gerecht für sich selbst, und doch ein Mensch sein. Diese Aufgabe ist daher die schwerste unter allen; ja ihre vollkommene Auflösung ist unmöglich; aus so krummen Holze, als woraus der Mensch gemacht ist, kann nichts ganz Gerades gezimmert werden. Nur die Annäherung zu dieser Idee ist uns von der Natur auferlegt.

Each of them will always abuse his freedom if he has none above him who exercises power in accord with the laws. The highest ruler should be just in himself, and still be a human. This task is therefore the hardest of all; indeed, its complete solution is impossible, for from such crooked wood as a human is made can nothing quite straight ever be fashioned. Only the approximation of this idea is imposed upon us by nature.

Immanuel Kant, Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht, 6. Satz (1784) in Sämtliche Werke in sechs Bänden, vol. 1, p. 230 (Großherzog Wilhelm Ernst ed. 1921)(S.H. transl.)

https://harpers.org/2009/05/kant-the-crooked-wood-of-humankind/

https://news.sky.com/story/sage-members-worried-serious-disorder-could-overwhelm-attempts-to-control-coronavirus-12040171

https://www.cygnethealth.co.uk/service-users-carers/mental-health-act/section-2/

 

What are my rights?

You have certain rights when you are in hospital. These include the right to:

The Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA)

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/08/archives/the-freedom-of-the-press-orwell.html

timeline

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53601257

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html

 

 

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/brexit-belief-and-the-battle-for-britain/

Brexit, belief and the battle for Britain

-

 

 

 

 

https://www.tes.com/news/poor-pupil-behaviour-drives-away-overseas-teachers

 

 

http://www.slatermethuen.co.uk/hackenthorpe/

**** These are just a few of the totally inaccurate facts in THE HACKENTHORPE BOOK OF LIES

It's all in THE HACKENTHORPE BOOK OF LIES
A thorough and exhaustive source of misleading and untruthful information, compiled and edited by ex-Nobel Prizewinners Ron Hackenthorpe, Derek Hackenthorpe, Jeff "The Nozz" Hackenthorpe and Luigi V. Hackenthorpe. There are 4 handsomely bound volumes, which can be purchased individually, or in our 'Pack of Lies' gift set.

https://www.tes.com/news/one-three-teachers-leaves-within-five-years

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53494446

“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the high-brow periodicals.”

“Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Robert Colls  De Montfort University

Bruno Waterfield

'The N–word of the “Narcissus”:Conrad and Race in a South African University'


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00393274.2012.751670


'Teaching The Nigger of the “Narcissus” at the University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, is not brave at all. In a Department of English

Literature where Joseph Conrad's novellas and novels have been taught

continuously since the 1950s, its addition to the syllabus eight years ago

went unchallenged by my colleagues. Since then no student has ever

contested, let alone expressed outrage, at its inclusion.


'At Wits, the majority of our undergraduate students are black, although the

proportion decreases over the three years of the undergraduate major.


'Over the years I have noticed that my students are also disparaging about

what they identify as Euro-American political correctness ... they see

endless arguments over racial, ethnic, and gender nomenclature as a

self-satisfied, moralistic avoidance of politics. Pushing around the worn

coinage of approved names and phrases amounts to what Richard Ohmann calls

“a holier-than-thou moralism of the good, a politics of surfaces and

gestures” (Ohmann1995, 19). In “Politics and the English Language” (1946), George

Orwell levelled a similar charge against writers who resort to routine,

debased political language: jargon, “ready-made phrases,” “fly-blown

metaphors,” euphemisms, and pretentiousness: “People who write in this

manner usually have a general emotional meaning – they dislike one thing and

they want to express solidarity with another – but they are not interested

in the detail of what they are saying” '




 

 

Sorry to give a discordant, contrary view, which will be detested by a large number of 'Conservative Woman' readers, despite the fact that I completely oppose the removal of Nigger's headstone and think that Henry Getley has written a really fine article on the subject.


Before I mention my hideous, loathsome, objectionable view, which will be soundly rejected by these readers - if past experience is any guide, they won't be giving any good reasons - some cool academic comment on a matter which is surely relevant, the novel by the very great novelist Joseph Conrad called 'The Nigger of the Narcissus.' The academic comment comes not from me but from the article


'The N–word of the “Narcissus”:Conrad and Race in a South African University'


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00393274.2012.751670


'Teaching The Nigger of the “Narcissus” at the University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, is not brave at all. In a Department of English

Literature where Joseph Conrad's novellas and novels have been taught

continuously since the 1950s, its addition to the syllabus eight years ago

went unchallenged by my colleagues. Since then no student has ever

contested, let alone expressed outrage, at its inclusion.


'At Wits, the majority of our undergraduate students are black, although the

proportion decreases over the three years of the undergraduate major.


'Over the years I have noticed that my students are also disparaging about

what they identify as Euro-American political correctness ... they see

endless arguments over racial, ethnic, and gender nomenclature as a

self-satisfied, moralistic avoidance of politics. Pushing around the worn

coinage of approved names and phrases amounts to what Richard Ohmann calls

“a holier-than-thou moralism of the good, a politics of surfaces and

gestures” (Ohmann1995, 19). In “Politics and the English Language” (1946), George

Orwell levelled a similar charge against writers who resort to routine,

debased political language: jargon, “ready-made phrases,” “fly-blown

metaphors,” euphemisms, and pretentiousness: “People who write in this

manner usually have a general emotional meaning – they dislike one thing and

they want to express solidarity with another – but they are not interested

in the detail of what they are saying” '


 

 

 

Sorry to give a discordant, contrary view, which will be detested by a large number of 'Conservative Woman' readers - despite the fact that I completely oppose the removal of Nigger's headstone and think that Henry Getley has written an outstanding article on the subject.


Before I mention my hideous, loathsome, objectionable view which will be soundly rejected by these readers - if past experience is any guide, without giving any good reasons - some cool academic comment on a matter which is surely relevant, the novel by the very great novelist Joseph Conrad called 'The nigger of the Narcissus.' The academic comment doesn't come from me but from the article


'The N–word of the “Narcissus”:Conrad and Race in a South African University'


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00393274.2012.751670

 

The N–word of the “Narcissus”: Conrad and Race in a South African University

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00393274.2012.751670

 

Teaching The Nigger of the “Narcissus” at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, is not brave at all. In a Department of English Literature where Joseph Conrad's novellas and novels have been taught continuously since the 1950s, its addition to the syllabus eight years ago went unchallenged by my colleagues. Since then no student has ever contested, let alone expressed outrage, at its inclusion.

At Wits, the majority of our undergraduate students are black, although the proportion decreases over the three years of the undergraduate major.

 

Over the years I have noticed that my students are also disparaging about what they identify as Euro-American political correctness ...  they see endless arguments over racial, ethnic, and gender nomenclature as a self-satisfied, moralistic avoidance of politics. Pushing around the worn coinage of approved names and phrases amounts to what Richard Ohmann calls “a holier-than-thou moralism of the good, a politics of surfaces and gestures” (Ohmann 1995, 19). In “Politics and the English Language” (1946), George Orwell levelled a similar charge against writers who resort to routine, debased political language: jargon, “ready-made phrases,” “fly-blown metaphors,” euphemisms, and pretentiousness: “People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning – they dislike one thing and they want to express solidarity with another – but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying”

 

 

http://www.simt.co.uk/blog/great-british-railway-journeys-meets-the-river-don-engine

Sheffield Industrial Museums Trust

BBC2’s ‘Great Railway Journeys’ aired on Wednesday 17 January 2018 6.30pm features the mighty River Don engine in steam!

This journey, from Hull to Caernarfon, visited Kelham Island Museum to tell the story of the steel industry in Sheffield and its part in the building of the Dreadnought ship.

Here, Michael Portillo met with local Naval Historian David Boursnell to learn how the engine powered the rollers which made 2,000 tons of armour plates to protect the sides side of HMS Dreadnought, as well as armour for many of the other British battleships that fought at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Nearly half of the side armour for the Dreadnought was 12 inches thick.

http://www.simt.co.uk/kelham-island-museum/what-to-see/main-museum-enid-hattersley-gallery/river-don-engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railway_Journeys

 

 

 

This is simply a suggestion. I won't be offended, of course, if you think it's impractical or if can't be considered for any number of other reasons, and it doesn't have to be even acknowledged. As well as giving an outline of 'the suggestion,' I'll outline my reasons for making it, or some of the reasons. I could give far more detail, but I concentrate on 'the suggestion' here.


I think there's a need for a general site which is right-wing or centre-right and which opposes political correctness. Political correctness takes many forms and can be found in many places, including the BBC, the ther media, schools and Universities, the police Labour Party politicians, many politicians of other parties. A general site which is fair-minded - which is willing to recognize that the BBC, in its present as well as past isn't a uniform cess pit, that it still produces some good or very good programmes, as it did in the past (rather more often.) I don't have a TV licence and have never had one. I've never owned a TV, but I'm able to watch a great deal of TV, legally. A general site which doesn't distort by generalization. A site which recognizes that the BBC's output may be very flawed, very biased in political matters and in most of its comedy output now but that some of its output, a great deal of its output, isn't subject to the same criticisms - to give just a few examples, its programmes on the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, the Second World War, Remembrance Sunday, railways. And its output of harmless, non-intellectual, non-cultural material is a necessity (during the Second World War, the BBC was catering for similar tastes, the tastes overwhelmingly of the ordinary people whose achievements and courage were overwhelmingly impressive, extraordinary. A general site which doesn't generalize in its discussion of political correctness in the universities - which could take account of the fact that Christian orthodoxy is entrenched at Oxford and Cambridge as in the past, although not to nearly the same extent (assent to the 39 Articles of the Church of England isn't a requirement now.) A site which doesn't have a restrictive view of Conservatism, which recognizes that Conservatives aren't necessarily Christian or religious but may be agnostic or atheistic. A site where discussion isn't genteel but is courteous.


I think that Craig and Sue are really good people to have such a site (Sue's article 'Quartet' has reminded me of that, not that I needed reminding.) Already, 'Is the BBC biased?' has these values (it doesn't emphasize its secular values but it doesn't go out of its way to promote Christianity.) I can think of sites which share some of this site's values which have faults impossible to ignore and which are a liability, to a greater or lesser extent, The difficulty is that the site's name and Website address are too restrictive by far. Craig and Sue and many of your commenters range very widely, beyond matters to do with the BBC. I think that more people would comment on the site if the name of the site could be changed. As regards your commenters, you've nothing to regret - there's so much of interest to find in the comments sections, as in the articles. (I'm not classifying myself as a commenter - I've hardly ever commented here. I'm a reader, not a commenter.)


I'd suggest, then, a name change for the site, to reflect the fact that the site is already a broadly based one and to make it easier to discuss and give information about a wide range of issues. The Internet address of the site would seem to be a great difficulty. It wouldn't be possible to change that. If you did, people would find it very difficult to find the site and the ranking of the site in Google would be affected. How could the name of the site be changed to reflect a wider range than the BBC  it it's impossible to change the address, 'isthebbcbiased ...?'


I'd suggest this: the address of the site stays the same, as it has to, but 'bbc' is given a different interpretation. I'd suggest 'Big British Culture-Industry' to replace 'British Broadcasting Company.' So, the new title of the site would be, wait for it!


<i>Is the Big British Culture Industry biased? Incorporating 'Is the BBC biased?</i>

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geWnr2HAL8Q

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-genesis-code/379341/

Noahsarkian  Damnationist  Newmanic  Tripod

 

Get a grip, man! (or perhaps that should be, 'Get a grip, woman!) Sort yourself out, man! (perhaps that should be, 'Sort yourself out, woman!) Reformed Gentleman will now find that there's a new section in the 'elsewhere.' It contains material on 'Reformed Gentleman' but not very much for the time being. He - or she - will know what's meant by the 'elsewhere' and where to find the 'elsewhere.' I gave the internet address of the 'elsewhere' in a comment in this section but realized that I was mistaken - a blog isn't the place for a commenter to promote, or to publish the address, of, an 'elsewhere.' He'll know how to find it (or she will know how to find it.) If not, try using the resources of Google (but he - or she - has already given some objections to the use of Google in comments here. If he (or she) can't find the 'elsewhere' unaided, he (or she) can put into Google the search term Cambridge University excellence stupidity or the search term ethical depth or the search term Churches remembrance redemption. This last search term can take Reformed Gentleman to the page in the 'elsewhere' which contains material on this bizarre specimen. It's towards the left hand corner, the first of the 'Profiles.' The title of his (or her) Profile is this: 'Reformed Gentleman and Bufo buffoon, a venomous toad.'  In each case, the 'elsewhere' will be in the first few results for many millions of total results for the search. Hint: look for 'linkages.'


I've only made a start on his profile: not much more than material he (or she) will already be familiar with. I give a few extracts from my own comments but he (or she) can rest assured that when I've had the time to work on this aspect of the 'elsewhere' there's be plenty of material which is completely new -  nothing to do with the comments I've had published from time to time in 'Conservative Woman.'


Already, there's fresh material. I explain why I now refer to Reformed Gentleman as a man or a woman, why I use 'she' as well as 'he,' 'her' as well as 'him.' This is one of the disadvantages of using a pseudonym on the Conservative Woman site. The pseudonym he (or she) uses, 'Reformed Gentleman' isn't conclusive evidence. To infer that 'Reformed Gentleman' is a man is a false inference. A nom-de-plume isn't conclusive evidence that a writer is a man or a woman. After all, George Eliot was a woman. In general, though, the identity and real names of writers who don't use their real name are well known. For instance, George Orwell is Eric Blair, a man.

 

 

 

 

Get a grip, man! (or perhaps that should be, 'Get a grip, woman!) Sort yourself out, man! (perhaps that should be, 'Sort yourself out, woman!) Reformed Gentleman will now find that there's a new section in the 'elsewhere.' It contains material on 'Reformed Gentleman' but not very much for the time being. He - or she - will know what's meant by the 'elsewhere' and where to find the 'elsewhere.' I gave the internet address of the 'elsewhere' in a comment in this section but realized that I was mistaken - a blog isn't the place for a commenter to promote, or to publish the address, of, an 'elsewhere.' He'll know how to find it (or she will know how to find it.) If not, try using the resources of Google (but he - or she - has already given some objections to the use of Google in comments here. If he (or she) can't find the 'elsewhere' unaided, he (or she) can put into Google the search term Cambridge University excellence stupidity or the search term ethical depth or the search term Churches remembrance redemption. This last search term can take Reformed Gentleman to the page in the 'elsewhere' which contains material on this bizarre specimen. It's towards the left hand corner, the first of the 'Profiles.' The title of his (or her) Profile is this: 'Reformed Gentleman and Bufo buffoon, a venomous toad.'  In each case, the 'elsewhere' will be in the first few results for many millions of total results for the search. Hint: look for 'linkages.'


I've only made a start on his profile: not much more than material he (or she) will already be familiar with. I give a few extracts from my own comments but he (or she) can rest assured that when I've had the time to work on this aspect of the 'elsewhere' there's be plenty of material which is completely new -  nothing to do with the comments I've had published from time to time


 

 

A National Day of Thanksgiving to commemorate our departure from the European
Union isn't likely in the least, but we're entitled to feel deep gratitude that we'll no longer be subject to the illusions and fictions of the European Union, such as the fiction that Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are more or less 'equal.' In matters of defence, the inequality is spectacular. Funding of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann) amounted to 0.60 %
of GDP in 2009. In 2019, this had fallen to 0.29 % of GDP. Ireland isn't even a member of NATO. In a dangerous world, with a deranged Iranian regime, which can threaten the supply of oil to Ireland as well as Britain, it relies upon Britain and the United States to keep it safe, together with other countries which, unlike Ireland, regard matters of defence as serious responsibilities. More on Ireland later.

The police force and the armed forces are primary responsibilities of government: protection against internal threats and protection against external threats. The countries of the European Union have police forces, of course, more or less effective, but the defence forces of so many European Union countries are pitifully inadequate. These countries make next to no attempt to contribute to collective security. The European Union has enacted legislation on a massive scale, but there's a gaping hole - it neglects defence. A householder with a house full of valuable possessions who neglected to put a lock on the door or to take any action to deter intruders would be no more culpable.

A quotation from an outstanding report published by the Henry Jackson Society in December, 2017: 'What the European Union owes the United Kingdom:' http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/HJS-Policy-Briefing-What-the-EU-Owes-the-UK-Final.pdf

<i>The defence of Europe is substantially dependent upon British military power. [The report] argues that the Europeans should take this into account as Britain withdraws from the European Union. Over this past five-year period, British defence spending – at US$285.5 billion – accounts for almost a third (32%) of spending by countries in both NATO and the EU, a sizeable figure that still conceals its true value, not least because many EU countries’ armed forces are unable to fight at the highest intensities, even in self-defence.

Meanwhile, countries on the European mainland that are members of both NATO and the EU shortchanged the alliance – and therefore their own security – by over US$96 billion in 2016, and in total by US$451 billion over the past five-year period (2012-2016). As a result, Britain has effectively subsidised the security and defence of the European mainland by an extra US$23.9 billion from 2012-2016.

The EU will almost certainly need British military support in the future, not least because of the country’s unique strategic assets ...</i>

The achievement of Boris Johnson in leading the United Kingdom to this exit from the European Union after the incompetent dithering of Theresa May is a massive achievement, I'm sure. Boris Johnson has failed to give defence the prominence it deserves although if the Labour Party had won the last election the situation would have been immeasurably worse, of course.

UK defence expenditure does need to be at a higher proportion of GDP - a much higher proportion, I think - but even at current rates, it comfortably exceeds the percentage of almost all European Union countries. In 2019, the percentage was 2.14% Of course, a strong economy is a precondition for increasing expenditure on defence and the effects of the Coronavirus on the economy will be devastating. (This being the case, to spend so many billions of pounds on HS2, the high speed rail line, is surely indefensible, a massive, massive blunder. To spend so many billions on overseas aid each year is unwarranted - a reduction in the amount spent was long overdue but the economic effects of Coronavirus give added urgency to the matter.)

Spain, the country which has seen fit to give us mini-lectures in the past and to issue mini-warnings concerning Gibraltar (which obviously has strategic importance) spent 0.92% as a proportion of GDP in 2019. The countries which spent more than 2% of GDP include Latvia and Estonia, countries which have a realistic attitude to defence and the threats to national sovereignty as a result of their proximity to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it's vital to defend ourselves against present threats and future threats but defending our history is vital too - defending our history against all those detractors who criticize our historical record unfairly, without good cause. A few remarks on some aspects of our history, then, with particular reference to Ireland. (My strong interest in Ireland and the deficiencies of the Irish republic dates from the time I spent in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, a formative experience. Amongst other things, it gave me immense admiration for the courage and professionalism of British forces.) All this is supplementary material but for me, it has relevance to Brexit. There are many, many reasons why I voted for Brexit. One aspect among so many others is this: the relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom will be a different one from the relationship between the Irish Republic which obtained when the two were both members of the European Union, which was an altogether less healthy relationship, I think, one which encouraged the delusions and illusions to be found in Irish nationalists.

According to the mythology of many Irish nationalists, nobody has suffered like the Irish, nobody has exploited others like the English. But in a conflict which was more devastating than any other in history, which inflicted suffering on a greater scale than any other, the English, and the other countries of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, carried on the war against Hitler alone, for a time, with exiled groups from many countries and volunteers from many countries, including volunteers from the Irish Republic, who served in large numbers. Irish nationalism and the Irish Free State stood aside and did nothing. The IRA actively sought help from the Germans. During The Second World War, the Irish Free State was neutral. After the death of Hitler, condolences for his death were offered from two sources, Portugal and the government of The Irish Republic.

'The Cruel Sea' is the novel by Nicholas Monsarrat. The factual claims here are
confirmed by Brian Girvin in his scholarly 'The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939 - 1945.' From the novel:

'...it was difficult to withhold one's contempt from a country such as Ireland, whose battle this
was and whose chances of freedom and independence in the event of a German
victory were nil. The fact that Ireland was standing aside from the conflict at this moment posed, from the naval angle, special problems which affected, sometimes mortally, all sailors engaged in the Atlantic, and earned their particular loathing.

'Irish neutrality, on which she placed a generous interpretation, permitted the Germans to maintain in Dublin an espionage-centre, a window into Britain, which operated throughout
the war and did incalculable harm to the Allied cause. But from the naval point of view there was an even more deadly factor: this was the loss of the naval bases in southern and western Ireland, which had been available to the Royal Navy during the first world war but were now forbidden them. To compute how many men and how many ships this denial was costing, month after month, was hardly possible; but the total was substantial and tragic.

'From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision. She was in fact at liberty to stand aside from the struggle, whatever harm this did to the Allied cause. But sailors, watching the ships go down and counting the number of their friends who might have been alive instead of dead, saw the thing in simpler terms. They saw Ireland safe under the British umbrella, fed by her convoys, and protected by her air force, her very neutrality guaranteed by the British armed forces: they saw no return for this protection save a condoned sabotage of the Allied war effort: and they were angry - permanently angry. As they sailed past this smug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency. In the list of people you were prepared to like when the war was over, the man who stood by and watched while you were getting your throat cut could not figure very high.'

Irish nationalists before and during The First World War were not at all altruistic. They were preoccupied with their own plight, or their own supposed victim status (I incline to the view that the second alternative was closer to the reality.) The British state was far more altruistic, as at the time of Britain's entry into the war. Gary Sheffield's 'A Short History of The First World War' is a book of exceptional insight, and he discusses well the issues which led to Britain's entry.

He writes, 'There was nothing inevitable about the British entry into the war.' There were differences of opinion amongst British politicians. Asquith, for instance, 'initially thought that Britain should stay out of the war ... And yet on 4 August, Asquith's government, with Lloyd George remaining a prominent member, brought a largely united nation into the war.

'What changed the situation was the German invasion of Belgium. Both Britain and Germany (the latter through its predecessor state of Prussia) had guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium in a treaty of 1839. That a major power should simply rip up an international agreement was regarded as a moral outrage, causing genuine anger.'

The anger was widely felt in Britain and, too, admiration for Belgium. There were strategic reasons for supporting Belgium, it's true. 'Maintaining maritime security by keeping the coast of the Low Countries out of the hands of a hostile power had been a staple of British foreign policy for centuries. [Maritime security continues to be an issue of massive importance of course, an issue far more widely recognized as massively important in this country than in most of the countries of the European Union.] German occupation of Belgium posed a similar threat to that of the occupation of the same territory by another naval rival, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, a century before and provoked the same response.'

Of course, defence has much wider importance as well. Environmental campaigners, such as the hapless Swede Greta Thunberg, need to be reminded that no matter what care is taken for the environment, if a country is invaded, it loses the power to care for the environment, and, of course, loses the ability to control most other aspects of its national life. Sweden isn't protected from the possibility of Soviet invasion by the Swedish defence forces.

Sweden is belatedly giving far more attention to defence expenditure now. From the site
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/09/05/sweden-plans-2-billion-in-extra-defense-spending-over-2022-2025-period/

'The step to increase defense spending – enough to drive it up from its current level of 1 percent of GDP to 1.5 percent by 2025 – comes as Sweden continues to refocus its energies toward defense of the homeland. With tensions with Russia rising in the Baltic Sea region, Swedish politicians are no longer turning a blind eye to Kremlin behavior.'

But the higher level of 1.5% of GDP is still not high enough.

As for Black Lives Matter campaigners, nothing is further from their minds than defence expenditure and the need to maintain our defences, the need to strengthen our defences. They aren't indifferent to expenditure on the police, of course: so many of them want to defund the police. These would-be defunders are indifferent to realities, unaware of realities, one-issue fanatics - unless, of course, they're compaigning for other unrealizable objectives as well, such as the abolition of all livestock farming and the adoption of a purely vegan agriculture, in which case they're multi-issue fanatics. The vegan dream comes to an end if external aggressors aren't deterred and decide to attack.

The Scottish nationalist dream too depends upon ignoring the importance of defence. An independent Scotland can be relied upon to do far more and pay far more to defend itself than the Irish Republic - or at least I hope so - but the security of an independent Scotland would be dependent upon the non-Scottish forces of the reduced United Kingdom to a high degree. The Scottish Nationalist Party would never recognize the reality, but it's campaigning for an Independent High Dependency Scotland.

It's good to read Andrew Cadman's article and his heartfelt praise for 'a daring, innovative, maritime people.'

 

 

A National Day of Thanksgiving to commemorate our departure from the European
Union isn't likely in the least, but we're entitled to feel deep gratitude that we'll no longer be subject to the illusions and fictions of the European Union, such as the fiction that Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are more or less 'equal.' In matters of defence, the inequality is spectacular. Funding of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann) amounted to 0.60 %
of GDP in 2009. In 2019, this had fallen to 0.29 % of GDP. Ireland isn't even a member of NATO. In a dangerous world, with a deranged Iranian regime, which can threaten the supply of oil to Ireland as well as Britain, it relies upon Britain and the United States to keep it safe, together with other countries which, unlike Ireland, regard matters of defence as serious responsibilities. More on Ireland later.

The police force and the armed forces are primary responsibilities of government: protection against internal threats and protection against external threats. The countries of the European Union have police forces, of course, more or less effective, but the defence forces of so many European Union countries are pitifully inadequate. These countries make next to no attempt to contribute to collective security. The European Union has enacted legislation on a massive scale, but there's a gaping hole - it neglects defence. A householder with a house full of valuable possessions who neglected to put a lock on the door or to take any action to deter intruders would be no more culpable.

A quotation from an outstanding report published by the Henry Jackson Society in December, 2017: 'What the European Union owes the United Kingdom:' http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/HJS-Policy-Briefing-What-the-EU-Owes-the-UK-Final.pdf

<i>The defence of Europe is substantially dependent upon British military power. [The report] argues that the Europeans should take this into account as Britain withdraws from the European Union. Over this past five-year period, British defence spending – at US$285.5 billion – accounts for almost a third (32%) of spending by countries in both NATO and the EU, a sizeable figure that still conceals its true value, not least because many EU countries’ armed forces are unable to fight at the highest intensities, even in self-defence.

Meanwhile, countries on the European mainland that are members of both NATO and the EU shortchanged the alliance – and therefore their own security – by over US$96 billion in 2016, and in total by US$451 billion over the past five-year period (2012-2016). As a result, Britain has effectively subsidised the security and defence of the European mainland by an extra US$23.9 billion from 2012-2016.

The EU will almost certainly need British military support in the future, not least because of the country’s unique strategic assets ...</i>

The achievement of Boris Johnson in leading the United Kingdom to this exit from the European Union after the incompetent dithering of Theresa May is a massive achievement, I'm sure. Boris Johnson has failed to give defence the prominence it deserves although if the Labour Party had won the last election the situation would have been immeasurably worse, of course.

UK defence expenditure does need to be at a higher proportion of GDP - a much higher proportion, I think - but even at current rates, it comfortably exceeds the percentage of almost all European Union countries. In 2019, the percentage was 2.14% Of course, a strong economy is a precondition for increasing expenditure on defence and the effects of the Coronavirus on the economy will be devastating. (This being the case, to spend so many billions of pounds on HS2, the high speed rail line, is surely indefensible, a massive, massive blunder. To spend so many billions on overseas aid each year is unwarranted - a reduction in the amount spent was long overdue but the economic effects of Coronavirus give added urgency to the matter.)

Spain, the country which has seen fit to give us mini-lectures in the past and to issue mini-warnings concerning Gibraltar (which obviously has strategic importance) spent 0.92% as a proportion of GDP in 2019. The countries which spent more than 2% of GDP include Latvia and Estonia, countries which have a realistic attitude to defence and the threats to national sovereignty as a result of their proximity to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it's vital to defend ourselves against present threats and future threats but defending our history is vital too - defending our history against all those detractors who criticize our historical record unfairly, without good cause. A few remarks on some aspects of our history, then, with particular reference to Ireland. (My strong interest in Ireland and the deficiencies of the Irish republic dates from the time I spent in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, a formative experience. Amongst other things, it gave me immense admiration for the courage and professionalism of British forces.) All this is supplementary material but for me, it has relevance to Brexit. There are many, many reasons why I voted for Brexit. One aspect among so many others is this: the relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom will be a different one from the relationship between the Irish Republic which obtained when the two were both members of the European Union, which was an altogether less healthy relationship, I think, one which encouraged the delusions and illusions to be found in Irish nationalists.

According to the mythology of many Irish nationalists, nobody has suffered like the Irish, nobody has exploited others like the English. But in a conflict which was more devastating than any other in history, which inflicted suffering on a greater scale than any other, the English, and the other countries of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, carried on the war against Hitler alone, for a time, with exiled groups from many countries and volunteers from many countries, including volunteers from the Irish Republic, who served in large numbers. Irish nationalism and the Irish Free State stood aside and did nothing. The IRA actively sought help from the Germans. During The Second World War, the Irish Free State was neutral. After the death of Hitler, condolences for his death were offered from two sources, Portugal and the government of The Irish Republic.

'The Cruel Sea' is the novel by Nicholas Monsarrat. The factual claims here are
confirmed by Brian Girvin in his scholarly 'The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939 - 1945.' From the novel:

'...it was difficult to withhold one's contempt from a country such as Ireland, whose battle this
was and whose chances of freedom and independence in the event of a German
victory were nil. The fact that Ireland was standing aside from the conflict at this moment posed, from the naval angle, special problems which affected, sometimes mortally, all sailors engaged in the Atlantic, and earned their particular loathing.

'Irish neutrality, on which she placed a generous interpretation, permitted the Germans to maintain in Dublin an espionage-centre, a window into Britain, which operated throughout
the war and did incalculable harm to the Allied cause. But from the naval point of view there was an even more deadly factor: this was the loss of the naval bases in southern and western Ireland, which had been available to the Royal Navy during the first world war but were now forbidden them. To compute how many men and how many ships this denial was costing, month after month, was hardly possible; but the total was substantial and tragic.

'From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision. She was in fact at liberty to stand aside from the struggle, whatever harm this did to the Allied cause. But sailors, watching the ships go down and counting the number of their friends who might have been alive instead of dead, saw the thing in simpler terms. They saw Ireland safe under the British umbrella, fed by her convoys, and protected by her air force, her very neutrality guaranteed by the British armed forces: they saw no return for this protection save a condoned sabotage of the Allied war effort: and they were angry - permanently angry. As they sailed past this smug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency. In the list of people you were prepared to like when the war was over, the man who stood by and watched while you were getting your throat cut could not figure very high.'

Irish nationalists before and during The First World War were not at all altruistic. They were preoccupied with their own plight, or their own supposed victim status (I incline to the view that the second alternative was closer to the reality.) The British state was far more altruistic, as at the time of Britain's entry into the war. Gary Sheffield's 'A Short History of The First World War' is a book of exceptional insight, and he discusses well the issues which led to Britain's entry.

He writes, 'There was nothing inevitable about the British entry into the war.' There were differences of opinion amongst British politicians. Asquith, for instance, 'initially thought that Britain should stay out of the war ... And yet on 4 August, Asquith's government, with Lloyd George remaining a prominent member, brought a largely united nation into the war.

'What changed the situation was the German invasion of Belgium. Both Britain and Germany (the latter through its predecessor state of Prussia) had guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium in a treaty of 1839. That a major power should simply rip up an international agreement was regarded as a moral outrage, causing genuine anger.'

The anger was widely felt in Britain and, too, admiration for Belgium. There were strategic reasons for supporting Belgium, it's true. 'Maintaining maritime security by keeping the coast of the Low Countries out of the hands of a hostile power had been a staple of British foreign policy for centuries. [Maritime security continues to be an issue of massive importance of course, an issue far more widely recognized as massively important in this country than in most of the countries of the European Union.] German occupation of Belgium posed a similar threat to that of the occupation of the same territory by another naval rival, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, a century before and provoked the same response.'

Of course, defence has much wider importance as well. Environmental campaigners, such as the hapless Swede Greta Thunberg, need to be reminded that no matter what care is taken for the environment, if a country is invaded, it loses the power to care for the environment, and, of course, loses the ability to control most other aspects of its national life. Sweden isn't protected from the possibility of Soviet invasion by the Swedish defence forces.

Sweden is belatedly giving far more attention to defence expenditure now. From the site
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/09/05/sweden-plans-2-billion-in-extra-defense-spending-over-2022-2025-period/

'The step to increase defense spending – enough to drive it up from its current level of 1 percent of GDP to 1.5 percent by 2025 – comes as Sweden continues to refocus its energies toward defense of the homeland. With tensions with Russia rising in the Baltic Sea region, Swedish politicians are no longer turning a blind eye to Kremlin behavior.'

But the higher level of 1.5% of GDP is still not high enough.

As for Black Lives Matter campaigners, nothing is further from their minds than defence expenditure and the need to maintain our defences, the need to strengthen our defences. They aren't indifferent to expenditure on the police, of course: so many of them want to defund the police. These would-be defunders are indifferent to realities, unaware of realities, one-issue fanatics - unless, of course, they're compaigning for other unrealizable objectives as well, such as the abolition of all livestock farming and the adoption of a purely vegan agriculture, in which case they're multi-issue fanatics. The vegan dream comes to an end if external aggressors aren't deterred and decide to attack.

The Scottish nationalist dream too depends upon ignoring the importance of defence. An independent Scotland can be relied upon to do far more and pay far more to defend itself than the Irish Republic - or at least I hope so - but the security of an independent Scotland would be dependent upon the non-Scottish forces of the reduced United Kingdom to a high degree. The Scottish Nationalist Party would never recognize the reality, but it's campaigning for an Independent High Dependency Scotland.

It's good to read Andrew Cadman's article and his heartfelt praise for 'a daring, innovative, maritime people.'

 

 

Your use of 'QED' here (and in other places in your writings) calls for comment. You use it, I'm sure, to stress your belief that your argument is completete - not just complete, but convincing, certain, even - that you've got the better of your hapless opponent. If so, your confidence is completely misplaced.


A little background information about 'QED,' to begin with. It's an abbreviation for the Latin 'Quod erat demonstrandum,' as you surely know. It's placed at the end of a mathematical proof (or philosophical argument) to indicate that the proof (or argument) is complete. The best-known example of its use is in the works of Euclid,although Euclid, like Archimedes, used the words ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι - the Latin is a translation of the Greek.


The best known use by a philosopher comes from the Ethics of Spinoza. From the introduction to the edition of Ethics on my bookshelves: 'Spinoza tells his reader that this work is written in a geometrical manner ('ordine geometrico demonstrata.'). The propositions of Spinoza's philosophy are presented and proved in a quasi-geometrical manner, weth the definitions and axioms clearly laid out and the proof itself developed stop-by-stop.'


I strongly object to the use of 'proved' and 'proof' here. What is possible in a deductive system such as the Euclidean isn't in the least possible in the ethical system of Spinoza. (If you think this is unwarranted, you should reflect that the ethical system of Spinoza is incompatible with Christianity.)




Sweden is belatedly giving far more attention to defence expenditure now. From the site
 https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/09/05/sweden-plans-2-billion-in-extra-defense-spending-over-2022-2025-period/

'The step to increase defense spending – enough to drive it up from its current level of 1 percent of GDP to 1.5 percent by 2025 – comes as Sweden continues to refocus its energies toward defense of the homeland. With tensions with Russia rising in the Baltic Sea region, Swedish politicians are no longer turning a blind eye to Kremlin behavior.'

But the higher level of 1.5% of GDP still not high enough.












A National Day of Thanksgiving to commemorate our departure from the European
Union isn't likely in the least, but we're entitled to feel deep gratitude that we'll no longer be subject to the illusions and fictions of the European Union, such as the fiction that Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are more or less 'equal.' In matters of defence, the inequality is spectacular. Funding of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann) amounted to 0.60 %
of GDP in 2009. In 2019, this had fallen to 0.29 % of GDP. Ireland isn't even a member of NATO. In a dangerous world, with a deranged Iranian regime, which can threaten the supply of oil to Ireland as well as Britain,it relies upon Britain and the United States to keep it safe, together with other countries which, unlike Ireland, regard matters of defence as serious responsibilities. More on Ireland later.

The police force and the armed forces are primary responsibilities of government: protection against internal threats and protection against external threats. The countries of the European Union have police forces, of course, more or less effective, but the defence forces of so many European Union countries are pitifully inadequate. These countries make next to no attempt to contribute to collective security. The European Union has enacted legislation on a massive scale, but there's a gaping hole - it neglects defence. A householder with a house full of valuable possessions who neglected to put a lock on the door or to take any action to deter intruders would be no more culpable.

A quotation from an outstanding report published by the Henry Jackson Society in December, 2017:'What the European Union owes the United Kingdom:'

The defence of Europe is substantially dependent upon British military power. [The report] argues that the Europeans should take this into account as Britain withdraws from the European Union. Over this past five-year period, British defence spending – at US$285.5 billion – accounts for almost a third (32%) of spending by countries in both NATO and the EU, a sizeable figure that still conceals its true value, not least because many EU countries’ armed forces are unable to fight at the highest intensities, even in self-defence.

Meanwhile, countries on the European mainland that are members of both NATO and the EU shortchanged the alliance – and therefore their own security – by over US$96 billion in 2016, and in total by US$451 billion over the past five-year period (2012-2016). As a result, Britain has effectively subsidised the security and defence of the European mainland by an extra US$23.9 billion from 2012-2016.

The EU will almost certainly need British military support in the future, not least because of the country’s unique strategic assets ...

The achievement of Boris Johnson in leading the United Kingdom to this exit from the European Union, after the incompetence dithering of Theresa May is a massive achievement, I'm sure. Boris Johnson's has failed to give defence the prominence it deserves but of course, if the Labour Party had won the last election the situation would have been immeasurably worse.

UK defence expenditure needs to receive a higher proportion of GDP - a much higher proportion, I think - but even at current rates, it comfortably exceeds the percentage of almost all European Union countries. In 2019, the percentage was 2.14%

Spain, for instance, the country which has seen fit to give us mini-lectures in the past and to issue mini-warnings concerning Gibraltar (which obviously has strategic importance) spent 0.92% as a proportion of GDP. The countries which spent more than 2% of GDP include Latvia and Estonia, countries which have a realistic attitude to defence and the threats to national sovereignty as a result of their proximity to the Soviet Union.

Of course, we shouldn't be preoccupied only with present threats and doing our utmost to defend ourselves against future threats from external sources. Defending our history is vital too - defending our history against all those detractors who criticize our history without good cause. A few remarks on some aspects of our history, then, with particular reference to Ireland. All this is supplementary material but for me, it has relevance to Brexit. There are many, many reasons why I voted for Brexit. One aspect among so many others is this: the relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom will be a different one from the relationship between the Irish Republic which obtained when the two were both members of the European Union, which was an altogether less healthy relationship, I think, one which encouraged delusions and illusions to be found in Irish nationalists.

According to the mythology of Irish nationalists, nobody has suffered like the Irish, nobody has exploited others like the English. But in a conflict which was more devastating than any other in history, which inflicted suffering on a greater scale than any other, the English, and the other countries of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, carried on the war against Hitler alone, for a time, with exiled groups from many countries and volunteers from many countries, including volunteers from the Irish Republic, who served in large numbers. Irish nationalism and the Irish Free State stood aside and did nothing. The IRA actively sought help from the Germans. During The Second World War, the Irish Free State was neutral. After the death of Hitler, condolences were offered from two
sources, Portugal and the government of The Irish Republic.

'The Cruel Sea' is a popular novel by Nicholas Monsarrat.' The factual claims here are
confirmed by Brian Girvin in his scholarly 'The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939 - 1945).

'...it was difficult to withhold one's contempt from a country such as Ireland, whose battle this
was and whose chances of freedom and independence in the event of a German
victory were nil. The fact that Ireland was standing aside from the conflict at this moment posed, from the naval angle, special problems which affected, sometimes mortally, all sailors engaged in the Atlantic, and earned their particular loathing.

'Irish neutrality, on which she placed a generous interpretation, permitted the Germans to maintain in Dublin an espionage-centre, a window into Britain, which operated throughout
the war and did incalculable harm to the Allied cause. But from the naval point of view there was an even more deadly factor: this was the loss of the naval bases in southern and western Ireland, which had been available to the Royal Navy during the first world war but were now forbidden them. To compute how many men and how many ships this denial was costing, month after month, was hardly possible; but the total was substantial and tragic.

'From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision. She was in fact at liberty to stand aside from the struggle, whatever harm this did to the Allied cause. But sailors, watching the ships go down and counting the number of their friends who might have been alive instead of dead, saw the thing in simpler terms. They saw Ireland safe under the British umbrella, fed by her convoys, and protected by her air force, her very neutrality guaranteed by the British armed forces: they saw no return for this protection save a condoned sabotage of the Allied war effort: and they were angry - permanently angry. As they sailed past this smug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency. In the list of people you were prepared to like when the war was over, the man who stood by and watched while you were getting your throat cut could not figure very high.'

Some observations on an aspect of the First World War:

Irish nationalists within the British state before and during The First World War were not at all altruistic. They were preoccupied with their own plight, or their own supposed victim status (I incline to the view that the second alternative was closer to the reality.) The wider British
state could be far more altruistic, as at the time of Britain's entry into the war. Gary Sheffield's 'A Short History of The First World War' is a book of exceptional insight, and he discusses well the issues which led to Britain's entry.

He writes, 'There was nothing inevitable about the British entry into the war.' There were differences of opinion amongst British politicians. Asquith, for instance, 'initially thought that Britain should stay out of the war ... And yet on 4 August, Asquith's government, with Lloyd George remaining a prominent member, brought a largely united nation into the war.

'What changed the situation was the German invasion of Belgium. Both Britain and Germany (the latter through its predecessor state of Prussia) had guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium in a treaty of 1839. That a major power should simply rip up an international agreement was regarded as a moral outrage, causing genuine anger.' The anger was widely felt in Britain and, too, admiration for Belgium. There were strategic reasons for supporting Belgium, it's true. 'Maintaining maritime security by keeping the coast of the Low Countries out of the hands of a hostile power had been a staple of British foreign policy for centuries. [Maritime security continues to be an issue of massive importance of course, an issue far more widely recognized as massively important in this country than in most of the countries of the European Union.] German occupation of Belgium posed a similar threat to that of the occupation of the same territory by another naval rival, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, a century before and provoked the same response.'





The police force and the armed forces are primary responsibilities of government: protection against internal threats and protection against external threats. The countries of the European Union have police forces, of course, more or less effective, but the defence forces of so many European Union countries are pitifully inadequate. These countries make next to no attempt to contribute to collective security. The European Union has enacted legislation on a massive scale, but there's a gaping hole - it neglects defence. A householder with a house full of tasteful possessions who neglected to put a lock on the door or to take any action to deter intruders would be no more culpable.

A National Day of Thanksgiving to commemorate our departure from the European Union isn't likely in the least, but we're entitled to feel deep gratitude that we'll no longer be subject to the illusions and fictions of the European Union, such as the fiction that Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are more or less 'equal.' In matters of defence, the inequality is spectacular. Funding of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann)  amounted to 0.60 % of GDP in 2009. In 2019, this had fallen to 0.29 % of GDP. Ireland isn't even a member of NATO. In a dangerous world, with a deranged Iranian regime, which can threaten the supply of oil to Ireland as well as Britain,it relies upon Britain and the United States to keep it safe, together with other countries which, unlike Ireland, regard matters of defence as serious responsibilities. More on Ireland later.

A quotation from an outstanding report published by the Henry Jackson Society in December, 2017:'

What the European Union owes the United Kingdom highlights how the defence of Europe is substantially dependent upon British military power. It argues that the Europeans should take this into account as Britain withdraws from the European Union. Over this past five-year period, British defence spending – at US$285.5 billion – accounts for almost a third (32%) of spending by countries in both NATO and the EU, a sizeable figure that still conceals its true value, not least because many EU countries’ armed forces are unable to fight at the highest intensities, even in self-defence.

Meanwhile, countries on the European mainland that are members of both NATO and the EU shortchanged the alliance – and therefore their own security – by over US$96 billion in 2016, and in total by US$451 billion over the past five-year period (2012-2016). As a result, Britain has effectively subsidised the security and defence of the European mainland by an extra US$23.9 billion from 2012-2016.

The EU will almost certainly need British military support in the future, not least because of the country’s unique strategic assets ...

More on The achievement of Boris Johnson in leading the United Kingdom to this exit from the European Union, after the incompetence dithering of Theresa May is a massive achievement, I'm sure. Boris Johnson's has failed to give defence the prominence it deserves but of course, if the Labour Party had won the last election the situation would have been immeasurably worse.

Defence expenditure needs to receive a higher proportion of GDP - a much higher proportion, I think - but even at current rates, it comfortably exceeds the percentage of almost all European Union countries. In 2019, the percentage was 2.14%

Spain, for instance, the country which has seen fit to give us mini-lectures in the past and to issue mini-warnings concerning Gibraltar (which obviously has strategic importance) spent 0.92% as a proportion of GDP. The countries which spent more than 2% of GDP include Latvia and Estonia, countries which have a realistic attitude to defence and the threats to national sovereignty as a result of their proximity to the Soviet Union.

Of course, we shouldn't be preoccupied only with present threats and doing our utmost to defend ourselves against future threats from external sources. Defending our history is vital too - defending our history against all those detractors who criticize our history without good cause. A few remarks on some aspects of our history, then.

According to the mythology of Irish nationalists,  nobody has suffered like the Irish, nobody has exploited others like the English. But in a conflict which was more devastating than any other in history, which inflicted suffering on a greater scale than any other, the English, and the other countries of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, carried on the war against Hitler alone, for a time, with exiled groups from many countries and volunteers from many countries, including volunteers from the Irish Republic, who served in large numbers. Irish nationalism and the Irish Free State stood aside and did nothing. The IRA actively sought help from the Germans. During The Second World War, the Irish Free State was neutral. After the death of Hitler, condolences were offered from only two sources, Portugal and the government of The Irish Republic. 'The Cruel Sea' is a popular novel by Nicholas Monsarrat.' The factual claims here are confirmed by Brian Girvin in his scholarly 'The Emergency: Neutral Ireland 1939 - 1945).

'...it was difficult to withhold one's contempt from a country such as Ireland, whose battle this was and whose chances of freedom and independence in the event of a German victory were nil. The fact that Ireland was standing aside from the conflict at this moment posed, from the naval angle, special problems which affected, sometimes mortally, all sailors engaged in the Atlantic, and earned their particular loathing.

'Irish neutrality, on which she placed a generous interpretation, permitted the Germans to maintain in Dublin an espionage-centre, a window into Britain, which operated throughout the war and did incalculable harm to the Allied cause. But from the naval point of view there was an even more deadly factor: this was the loss of the naval bases in southern and western Ireland, which had been available to the Royal Navy during the first world war but were now forbidden them. To compute how many men and how many ships this denial was costing, month after month, was hardly possible; but the total was substantial and tragic.

'From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision. She was in fact at liberty to stand aside from the struggle, whatever harm this did to the Allied cause. But sailors, watching the ships go down and counting the number of their friends who might have been alive instead of dead, saw the thing in simpler terms. They saw Ireland safe under the British umbrella, fed by her convoys, and protected by her air force, her very neutrality guaranteed by the British armed forces: they saw no return for this protection save a condoned sabotage of the Allied war effort: and they were angry - permanently angry. As they sailed past this smug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency. In the list of people you were prepared to like when the war was over, the man who stood by and watched while you were getting your throat cut could not figure very high.'

Some observations on an aspect of the First World War:

 

Irish nationalists within the British state before and during The First World War were not at all altruistic. They were preoccupied with  their own plight, or their own supposed victim status (I incline to the view that the second alternative  was closer to the reality.) The wider British state could be far more altruistic, as at the time of Britain's entry into the war. Gary Sheffield's 'A Short History of The First World War' is a book of exceptional insight, and he  discusses well the issues which led to Britain's entry.

He writes, 'There was nothing inevitable about the British entry into the war.' There were differences of opinion amongst British politicians. Asquith, for instance, 'initially thought that Britain should stay out of the war ... And yet on 4 August, Asquith's government, with Lloyd George remaining a prominent member, brought a largely united nation into the war.

'What changed the situation was the German invasion of Belgium. Both Britain and Germany (the latter through its predecessor state of Prussia) had guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium in a treaty of 1839. That a major power should simply rip up an international agreement was regarded as a moral outrage, causing genuine anger.' The anger was widely felt in Britain and, too, admiration for Belgium. There were strategic reasons for supporting Belgium, it's true. 'Maintaining maritime security by keeping the coast of the Low Countries out of the hands of a hostile power had been a staple of British foreign policy for centuries. German occupation of Belgium posed a similar threat to that of the occupation of the same territory by another naval rival, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, a century before and provoked the same response.'

Supplementary material:

 I was in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles and the experience left an indelible impression, including heartfelt admiration for the courage and professionalism of the British forces - and detestation of the excesses of Irish Nationalist myth-making.

My visits to Belfast left an indelible impression but I was based in one of the safest areas of Northern Ireland. Even so, a few days before I left the Province for England, I heard a massive explosion in Coleraine which killed six pensioners and injured 44 people, including schoolchildren. I believe that the engine of the car bomb ended up in the barber's where I had my hair cut a week or two before.

From the Wikipedia entry on the bombing:

'Several of the wounded were maimed and left crippled for life. The bomb left a deep crater in the road and the wine shop was engulfed in flames; it also caused considerable damage to vehicles and other buildings in the vicinity. Railway Road was a scene of carnage and devastation with the mangled wreckage of the Ford Cortina resting in the middle of the street, the bodies of the dead and injured lying in pools of blood amongst the fallen masonry and roof slates, and shards of glass from blown-out windows blanketing the ground. Rescue workers who arrived at the scene spoke of "utter confusion" with many people "wandering around in a state of severe shock".

 




https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/what-the-european-union-owes-the-united-kingdom/

13 December 217

What the European Union owes the United Kingdom highlights how the defence of Europe is substantially dependent upon British military power. It argues that the Europeans should take this into account as Britain withdraws from the European Union. Over this past five-year period, British defence spending – at US$285.5 billion – accounts for almost a third (32%) of spending by countries in both NATO and the EU, a sizeable figure that still conceals its true value, not least because many EU countries’ armed forces are unable to fight at the highest intensities, even in self-defence.

Meanwhile, countries on the European mainland that are members of both NATO and the EU shortchanged the alliance – and therefore their own security – by over US$96 billion in 2016, and in total by US$451 billion over the past five-year period (2012-2016). As a result, Britain has effectively subsidised the security and defence of the European mainland by an extra US$23.9 billion from 2012-2016.

The EU will almost certainly need British military support in the future, not least because of the country’s unique strategic assets.























http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/chapter5.html



Chapter 5. Position of my Mind since 1845



The Church must denounce rebellion as of all possible evils the greatest. She must have no terms with it; if she would be true to her Master, she must ban and anathematize it. This is the meaning of a statement of mine, which has furnished matter for one of those special accusations to which I am at present replying: I have, however, {247} no fault at all to confess in regard to it; I have nothing to withdraw, and in consequence I here deliberately repeat it. I said, "The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse." I think the principle here enunciated to be the mere preamble in the formal credentials of the Catholic Church, as an Act of Parliament might begin with a "Whereas."

Newman was canonised by Pope Francis on 13 October 2019, during an open-air Mass in St. Peter's Square.

A file on Newman's beatification was first opened in 1958.[3] In 1991, Newman was proclaimed Venerable by Pope John Paul II after an examination of his life and work by the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints.[3] One miracle attributed to Newman's intercession was required to have occurred and been fully investigated and approved by the Vatican before he could be beatified. A second miracle would then be necessary for his canonisation.

In October 2005, Paul Chavasse, provost of the Birmingham Oratory, who is the postulator responsible for the cause, announced that a miraculous cure had occurred.[4]

Jack Sullivan,[5] a deacon from Marshfield, Massachusetts in the United States, attributed his recovery from a spinal cord disorder to Newman.[6] The claimed miracle occurred in the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Boston, whose responsibility it was to determine its validity. In August 2006, the Archbishop of Boston, Sean O'Malley announced he was passing details to the Vatican.[7]

On 24 April 2008, the press secretary to the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory reported that the medical consultants at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints had met that day and voted unanimously that Sullivan's recovery defied any scientific or medical explanation. The question of the genuineness of the alleged miracle then went to the panel of theological consultors,[8] who unanimously agreed to recognise the miracle a year later on 24 April 2009.[9] The panel's vote, presumably having been verified by the prelate members of the Congregation, allowed Pope Benedict XVI to beatify Newman at a date of his choosing following a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (then Archbishop Angelo Amato) to formally approve the Congregation's voting process.

On 3 July 2009, Pope Benedict XVI recognised the healing of Deacon Jack Sullivan in 2001 as a miracle, resulting from the intercession of the Venerable Servant of God, John Henry Newman. This decision paved the way for Newman's beatification, which occurred on 19 September 2010.[10] Pope Benedict said that Newman “tells us that our divine Master has assigned a specific task to each one of us, a ‘definite service’, committed uniquely to every single person.”[3]

Although it had been originally announced that Newman would be beatified at an open air Mass at Coventry Airport,[11] the venue was later switched to Cofton Park in Longbridge.[1] Thus it was during the first Papal state visit to the UK that Pope Benedict XVI himself performed the beatification on 19 September 2010.[12]

Steps towards canonisation

Chavasse expanded on his remarks at the Michaelmas 2006 Dinner of the Oxford University Newman Society (held in November), suggesting that Benedict XVI had shown a personal interest in Newman's cause.[6]

A second miracle was needed for Newman's canonisation. In November 2018, the Vatican approved a second miracle, involving the unexplained healing of a pregnant American woman from a life-threatening diagnosis and investigated by the Archdiocese of Chicago.[13] On 13 February 2019, it was announced that Pope Francis had approved the Decree concerning this miracle, and Newman's canonisation will take place in Rome on 13 October 2019.

Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum