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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land
band of credulous sycophants big band sound
Boulezian Band
Dr D J Vernon
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
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:
- Information about your section and the reasons for detention
- Information about consent to treatment
- Information about your rights of appeal to the Mental Health
Tribunal
- Information about how to contact a suitably qualified solicitor
- Information about your right to appeal to the Hospital Managers
- Information on how to obtain the help and support of an Independent
Mental Health Advocate (IMHA)
- Correspondence and visitors
- Information on how to make a complaint
- Information about safeguarding
- Information about the Care Quality Commission
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/
- Did you know that the reason why windows steam up in cold weather is
because of all the fish in the atmosphere?
- Did you know that Moslems are forbidden to eat glass?
- Did you know that the oldest rock in the world is the famous
Hackenthorpe Rock, in North Ealing, which is 2 trillion years old?
- Did you know that Milton was a woman?
- Did you know that from the top of the Prudential Assurance Building
in Bromley you can see 8 continents?
- Did you know that the highest point in the world is only 8 foot?
**** 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