Recycled concepts ...

I am currently reading a book on the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on the 10th December, 1941 off the coast of Malaysia. These two ships fell victim to aerial attack by 85 Japanese bombers and torpedo bombers. Their loss was a tragedy, a severe blow to British prestige and heralded the demise of the battleship as the 'Queen of the Oceans' in naval thinking. As ever, though, their loss arose from a combination of many factors, not least the belief in British military circles, that the Japanese were not 'air minded' and that the mere presence of these two ships would be sufficient to deter the Japanese invasion fleet.

They were sent to the Far East against the advice of the Admiralty, which wanted them to have an aircraft carrier to provide air cover. Churchill wanted a 'show of force' and believed the Japanese would not challenge 'superior British forces' despite the the fact the Japanese had a substantial fleet. He also believed the RAF when they told him they would provide the air cover for the ships - despite having only outdated and outclassed Brewster Buffalo fighters and Blenheim Light Bombers in place to face a vastly superior force. The Japanese had one stroke of incredible luck, the German surface raider Atlantis captured a ship carrying vital secret information - the full details of everything the British had deployed in Malaysia, where it was and even how effective it was likely to be.

Coupled with the sheer stupidity and incompetence of some of the British officers doing the assessment of Japanese forces and intentions, it is small wonder the entire air defences of Malaysia were destroyed within hours of the launching of the Japanese assault - most of them on the ground. Into this sailed the ill-fated Force Z. No air cover, inadequate air defences and a well equipped, well trained and extremely motivated enemy. It still took five torpedo hits to stop the Prince of Wales and sink her, and four to despatch the Repulse. Considering that almost 40 torpedos were launched against each ship and several tons of bombs, it is not surprising they were sunk. What is appalling is that they were sent out relying on 'air cover' which could not be supplied.

What is even more surprising is the fact that even 70 years on, there are still people in Westminster and Whitehall who argue that ships at sea can be defended by land-based aircraft. Or that a single aircraft can destroy a major warship. One thing they all overlook is that to be effective against a ship an aircraft has to penetrate the air defences, which starts with what our American Allies call a CAP - Combat Air Patrol - a constant patrol of the area around a Task Group by armed interceptor aircraft. Above these is an airborne radar picket, able to detect inward bound intruders well outside the attack range of their weapons, and to direct interceptors to deal with them. This is where our losses in the Falklands should have alerted our strategists and the politicians to the deficiencies of our armed forces - we lacked adequate airborne radar patrols and we also lacked the interceptor capacity, which the Argentinians exploited with their low-level strikes. Most of our ships didn't have the weapons needed to take down an incoming sea skimming missile either  - a 'cost saving' innovation based in the premise our ships would always operate with an ally providing this cover.

Even today our ships are despatched to duties well outside the capability of the RAF's "land based" aircraft in the same manner as the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Always the questions of air cover are answered by the statement, sometimes patently false, that the ship(s) will always have the requisite air cover from an ally. Thus, our Fleet currently has only the assault ship HMS Ocean and her compliment of helicopters as 'air cover' and airborne anti-submarine patrols. The new HMS Queen Elizabeth and her consort HMS Prince of Wales won't be available for a while yet, and even when they are, will not have a full complement of aircraft. That brings me to the next bit of 'recycled' thinking, this time from the 1960s.

The "Defence Review" of the late 1950s actually suggested that the future RAF would not have manned aircraft, but should instead be equipped with missiles. Likewise, it said the RN didn't need big ships - on the grounds that 'a single bomb can destroy an entire fleet.' They ignored several important things in making that statement. First you actually have to deliver the 'single bomb' which is not as easy as it sounds when you have to penetrate a properly equipped and organised defence screen. Secondly, the technology didn't then exist to completely do away with manned aircraft as an aerial defence system - and it still doesn't. There is talk now of equipping the two new carriers with 'drones' and I recently listened with growing disbelief to a civil servant spouting nonsense about how the technology would soon render the need to put pilots in any aircraft obsolete. There is also talk among the terminally blind in Westminster of not needing the carriers at all. Why? Oh, the RAF can provide the cover from a "land base" in "friendly territory". Ah, yes, and just where would that be in, say, the vacinity of the Falklands?

As the German Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr has discovered, the day of unmanned aircraft is a long way off - and may never be entirely possible. A pity it has taken them almost €2 billion to discover that the Eurohawk drone, impressive as it looks, can't get CAA clearance to fly. Why? Because the satelite communication it needs to be controlled while in flight is subject to disruption. Most of the cost of this project has been spent trying to cure that problem, without success. So now the Minister of Defence faces massive criticism for not having stopped the project earlier.

I find it fascinating that the lessons of 70 years ago have still not been learned in Whitehall or Westminster. They seem to have no concept of the realities of strategic thinking, of war or threat of war. Nor of maintaining the forces you need where you need them, or even of supporting those you have with the right defece systems. I get the impression it is all about their own comfort today. Tomorrow is someone else's problem. Pity about the chaps and chapesses our short-sightedness will ultimately kill - but, hey, never mind tomorrow ...

An Interesting Observation ...

Mark Twain, otherwise known as Samuel Langhorne Clemens, author of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn and numerous other stories, wrote of the Jews as a people -

"...If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky way. properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

 
The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" 

("Concerning The Jews," Harper's Magazine, 1899) 

It is an observation that certainly challenges many, especially at this time when Jews are once again the target of bigotry and prejudice. In Mr Clemens' day the Russian pogroms were rumbling along and spreading into neighbouring countries. Jews were still barely 'tolerated' in Spain, Italy and in France the infamous Dreyfus affair revealed a deep seated anti-semitic streak in their society. Even in Britain, Jews were not welcome in 'polite' society even though one of its more effective Prime Ministers, Benjamin D'Israeli, was a Jew. He had to convert to Christianity to be permitted to take his seat as an MP!

Jewish doctors, scientists and philosophers have made a huge impact on all societies down the centuries. As Mark Twain remarked, a disproportionately large one given the actual numbers involved. 

What is it, for instance, that drives a Jew, when faced with a strip of barren and 'tired' land on the edge of a desert, to roll up his sleeves and create an irrigation system so he can plant trees and grow oranges where his non-Jewish neighbours herded goats? They have their failures as well, and their crooks, but as a community they seem to be a lot better at picking themselves up, sticking a plaster on the wounds and getting stuck into rebuilding or trying something different, than anyone else. Whether they 'practice' their religion or not, they manage to retain their sense of identity and their cultural heritage a lot better than any other people in history.

They often blend into the background of whatever society they happen to live in. Sometimes you won't know someone is Jewish unless he tells you, yet they know one another - and not because of some 'secret signs' or 'arkane rituals'. It is because they have a certain way of doing things, a way of looking at history, or a way of dealing with others. It is, of course, founded in their faith, again whether they 'practice' it by regular prayer and attendance in the Synagogue, or not. So what is it that gives them the impetus to be so creative, so inventive, and so dogged in their persistence?

It may be in their genes, though I doubt it. For one thing, as most of those who have taken part in the Genographic Survey started a few years ago by the National Geographic Society have discovered, almost everyone with a European or Middle Eastern background has at least one of the genetic markers associated with the Ashkenazi or the Sephardic Jewish diaspora in their genetic make-up. That is hardly surprising, since they have, as a people, been scattered through the Middle East, North Africa and Europe since the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian kings around 598 BC. Yet, despite their internal factions, every attempt to suppress them, convert them, and exterminate them, they have managed to retain their identity and their heritage.

I think that is not only admirable, I think it contains some vital lessons for the rest of us.

Mark Twain, himself a Presbyterian, and though he was critical of organised religion, still a practioner, seems to have had a sneaking admiration for his Jewish contemporaries. As he remarked, their impact on all of the sciences and the arts is completely disproportionate to their numbers. In my view, that alone explains why they have succeeded in turning modern Israel into a thriving hub of agriculture, industry and commerce in the midst of a desert, both figuratively and literally.

Israel is a success story in the sense that it is a working democracy, economically stable (despite attempts to destablise it), and it is constantly at the forefront of innovative thinking in art, science and medicine. So why do so many in the West hate it, and want to see it destroyed? Could it be envy? 

Restoration of the Monarchy

On this day in 1660 Cromwell's "Commonwealth" officially ended with the Restoration of the Monarchy by Parliament. Charles II Stuart became the King of England and Wales and of Scotland. For his corontaion, the Scottish "Honours" had to be used as Cromwell had broken up the English Crown jewels and given some of the precious stones - like the Black Prince's 'Ruby' - to cronies. The ancient crown of Edward the Confessor (St Edward's Crown) was melted down at his command and the money went to pay for his military campaigns against the Scots and the Irish Catholics.

It took some time to restore the Crown Jewels, starting with the recreation of the Confessor's Crown in1661, and still used today for the coronation of the Monarch, though it was often carried rather than worn. The original was believed to contain parts of Alfred the Great's crown and it was worn at the coronation of every King or Queen until Cromwell. The famous 'Ruby" (it isn't actually a ruby, but a spinel weighing 170 carats) is now restored to the Crown Jewels, and can be seen at the front of the Imperial State Crown worn for the State Opening of Parliament and other "State" occassions. St Edward's Crown weighs a whopping 4 lbs 12 ounces (2.2 kg) largely because it is solid gold and set with 444 precious stones.

It is perhaps ironic that on this day in 1453, the last Byzantine Emperor died at the hands of the Turkish invaders, bringing to an end the Eastern Roman Empire. This event did trigger the exodus - begun in in 1326 - of the philosopher's, artists and thinkers who would bring the flowering of science and art to the west.  It brought the Renaissance into fruition, and the refugees brought with them copies of all the ancient texts from Greece, Egypt and the East long available only to a restricted few from the west.

I will tonight raise a toast. To my Queen and Sovereign and her heirs and successors. Long may they continue, and may their enemies reap only frustration and defeat.

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign.
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen.

Who Built a Pyramid in the Sea of Galilee?

Archaeologists are trying to raise the money to examine a strange structure roughly half a kilometer from the shore of the Sea of Gaililee. The submerged structure is conical and apparnetly man-made. It is not entirely unknown to locals, and it appears the archaeologists have known about it for some time as well. The problem is that to examine it would require working underwater at depths down to 15 metres. That limits the time anyone can work and to complicate things, the Sea is full of fine silt. Any movement disturbs this and the already murky water becomes even more opaque.

The experts are convinced the structure is man-made, but that raises a number of important questions, not least being when? That's quickly followed by "why" and "who"?

What is certain is that none of these questions will be answered until someone does undertake a close examination of the structure - and that is going to take a lot of time and money. As I understand it, the Sea of Galilee has exosted within its present shoreline for roughly 15,000 years. The 'cone' is made up of around 60,000 tons of local stone, which will have taken a lot of manpower to shift. The base is buried in silt, but roughy 12 metres of it is above the silt and it rises to within 3 metres of the surface.

Although it has been 'local knowledge' for a long time, it was only recently that a sonar survey of the lake revealed its all too regular shape and structure. Now it remains only to raise the millions of Dollars, Dinar or Pounds it will need to carry out the careful and detailed examination it calls for.

More can be read at Talking Points under "Submerged Structure Beneath Sea of Galilee".

The BBC Lurching Left - Again

The BBC has displayed a distinct bias to the Left of the political spectrum for as long as I've lived in the UK. I am told it predates that, so it must have its roots somewhere in the 1950s. I used to get quite upset at the very clear bias in the manner interviews were conducted with those from the Left getting a far softer ride than anyone from the Right. Once Labour and Blair were in office, the poison was really turned up against the Conservatives - yet Blair could lie through his teeth and never a murmur of challenge from the sycophantic BBC interviewers. Now their own man has admitted the bias and The Spectator reports it - but it hasn't stopped the appointment of a former Labour Cabinet minister as a Director or the decidely Left-wing former Deputy Editor of the Guardian as the Political Editor of Newsnight, one of the most lefty biased 'current affairs' programs the BBC produces.

I expect they will make all the usual protestations about 'balance' and how 'those in government should expect tougher questioning'. There will be lots of pretense and business as usual for the Beeb, after all they get millions a year out of the License Fees everyone is compelled to pay toward the Labour Party's propaganda.

As I said, I used to get angry about it. Now I don't bother. I turned off the BBC years ago, even before I left the UK to live in Germany. It just wasn't worth the aggravation, but one of these days, Parliament will have to address this farcical charade, and cut the BBCs funding. The bias is obvious, and it is now being remarked n by people who are outside the UK. It used to have a reputation for honesty, accuracy and factual reporting. No longer. It has become a joke, a laughing stock and a propaganda machine for the Left.

I'm just glad I no longer have to contribute to their activities.

A Battle for Cultural Supremacy

I have been following the reports of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby with interest, concern and, yes, some anger.  I have seen comments ranging from crude through to inflammatory appended to some online news pages, and a large number expressing horror and disgust. I can only salute the bravery of the two women, one confronting the murderers, the other remaining by the dead soldier 'so he would not die alone'.

The Muslim Council of Britain has issued a rather bland, and not entirely accurate, statement distancing themselves from this act, and so have one or two other Muslim spokespersons. Both have failed to distance themselves from the militant groups from their faith who have marched demanding the surrender of Britain's state to their culturl ideology and their religious law. Both have failed to stop the incitement preached by the likes of Abu Qatada in many mosques in our land at Friday paryers. And both fail to admit that the Quran contains over 400 passages urging the killing of 'Kafirs' or non-believers, and many more urging 'Holy War' to defend and spread their faith. Or that there are several groups using their faith as an excuse to attack us in our own land.

Our own politicians seem to have made a mixed response, though, in part, this is to be expected. One the one hand they have to avoid inflaming an already dangerous state of affairs, yet, on the other, people expect firm leadership and strong action at a time like this.

A large part of the problem is that we have, in the last twenty years, lost our sense of cultural identity, though the process started almost immediately post-WW2. Our heritage has been denigrated from all sides, our Imperial past is now universally painted as 'evil', as being based entirely on slavery and exploitation of 'the masses', and as bringing no benefit to anyone. Views usually put forward by the descendents of those who benefited most from these aspects. It has spread 'at home' as well, with the fostering, yet again in our history, of the ancient 'tribal' divisions. That seeks to deny any form of common heritage, or that we all owe our present standards of living, our health and even our welfare system to the culture of shared effort against oppression and tyrany, of building a nation around our concepts of freedom of speech, association and action.

We succeeded in raising living standards and quality of life for the majority of our citizens and became the envy of those whose own societies and cultures could not provide the same. But, what has always struck me as strange is that there is a large and fairly powerful minority in Britain who feel that every culture is superior to our own, that our heritage must be destroyed and replaced by others drawn from parts of the former Empire that are the very opposite of everything our forebears fought for or struggled to achieve for their heirs and successors. This 'fostering' of alternate cultures has created an environment within our island that encourages those who seek to destroy everything "British" and replace it with the very worst of the cultures their parents and grandparents sought to escape.

This is what has led to the present situation where we have an enemy embedded within our own borders. An enemy that is British by birth, repudiates everything of our heritage, our values, and our culture, and commits acts of pure barbarism in the name of their 'cause'. The worst aspect is that our political leaders permit it, even encourage it, by refusing to deal with the establishment of an alternative legal system and an alternative to our courts in our towns and cities.

Those of us who have lived in Africa have seen or known acts as repugnant as that which played out in Woolwich this week. Our Armed Forces have struggled against similarly barbaric 'rebels' in various failed states in Africa and elsewhere. They know, as I suspect do our politicians, that such things are a part of those 'cultures' when the veneer of law and order breaks down.

Unlike many of those who wish to see the importation of other cultural practices and the relegation of the English to a status of 'irrelevance', I have travelled in Africa, in the Middle and Far East and in the Americas. I can appreciate and even admire the cultural achievements of Iran, or of Thailand and Indonesia. I have many friends in Ghana among other African states, and in the Caribbean, the US and even Canada. While I admire the art, the architecture and the history of Iran, I would not, and do not, choose to live in a society modelled on theirs. Nor would I choose to live in an African cultural society, though there are aspects I admire. Likewise for China, Indonesia and the rest of Asia.

Culturally I am a "British North European". My heritage is entirely British/European, my moral code is based on Christianity, and the history of the peoples whose genes I carry is the 'lore' in which I am steeped. I recognise that we are no better and probably no worse than any other society or culture, but it is my culture. It is my heritage and the others, however admirable I may find some aspects, are alien. If I wish to live in a society founded on them - I should go to a country built on such ideals. That is, I believe, where the apartheid idea of each ethnic group importing, nurturing and continuing to practice their 'native' culture in a host nation is deeply and fatally flawed. That, I believe, is what has created the monster which produces the sort of vile act we have witnessed this week in Woolwich.

It is time for a major shift in the political thinking in Britain. We cannot afford to continue to encourage groups to reject our culture and impose their own. To continue down this road will only increase the tensions and make even worse atrocities more likely, not less. All our politicians need to stop denigrating everything British and praising everything alien. More importantly, they need to restore the education system so that it presents a more balanced picture of our rich and very complex cultural and social history instead of the biased mishmash that is currently taught.

Whether we know it or not, we are fighting a war for the survival of our culture. I do not support the actions of the likes of the EDL, the Anti-Fascist League, the BNP or any of the other extremes. Britain has a culture that was always 'tolerant', sometimes too tolerant, and sometimes not tolerant enough. Now we face an enemy within who wish to replace it with an intolerant one with its roots in the 7th Century and a different religion. Unless we are careful, they will win by default, because our politicians will continue to pursue policies of appeasement right to the point that they are themselves replaced.

It is a difficult problem, but it will not be solved by simply turning a blind eye or making more concessions to those who seek to impose their visions on us.

An Unspeakable Act

I have been wrestling all day with the problem of what to say about yesterday's murder of Drummer Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The act of his murder was bad enough, the subsequent actions of the "English Defence League" are not appropriate as a response. The murderers are currently in hospital having been shot and wounded by the police. No doubt, in due time, they will be tried for their crime. I note that two other people have been arrested in connection with this murder, but details are, at present sparse.

Drummer Rigby was apparently targeted by this pair, which suggests they were watching his Depot Barracks, probably even did some 'dry runs' to identify a suitable target and to find the most suitable place. I find it hard to believe that no one spotted anything suspicious, or that no one else was aware of their plans. Having seen these men, the blood still dripping from their hands and the weapons on the television - even confronting a brave (or extremely foolhardy woman) - making no attempt to flee the scene, one suspects they hoped for 'martyrdom'. Thanks to the restrained police action, and one must admit, the sense of the public, they failed to get that wish fulfilled.

I have no doubt that there will already be apologists lining up to claim these men are 'victims' of an 'uncaring' UK society, but hopefully they will not begin that campaign just yet. I am equally sure that the "Multi-Culty" promoters will be out in force to declare this is not a failure of their ideology. I find it astonishing that there are always those who will try to excuse the perpetrators, in my view they are as guilty as those who commit these crimes.

From the limited news reports I am able to access, it appears that noth the attackers are British citizens, recent converts to Islam and both were known to MI5, and yet they have been able to carry out their plan unhindered. There are several aspects about this affair that should concern us. The first, in my view, is that the response to it from the 'leaders' of the Muslim communities in the UK have been rather muted. The only one I have read that condemned it outright was from the Chairman of the Mosque Committee in Essex, whose mosque was attacked by EDL supporters. He made clear that these converts have not understood the teachings of their faith.

I do believe that the concept of Multi-Culturalism is deeply flawed and has contributed to the rise in alienated minority groups which provide the perfect recruiting ground for disaffected individuals willing to take violent action for any cause. It is never popular to say so, but Enoch Powell was right to make the warning he did in the 1960s and perhaps the reason the liberal-left hate him so passionately, is that he has been proved right again and again - though perhaps not quite as dramatically as his speech suggested. The question must be; how much more blood must we see needlessly shed before someone admits the concept of multiple cultures sharing the same space cannot work. We cannot continue to tolerate a significant minority who refuse to accept English Law, who repudiate the freedoms English men and women have won by blood, sweat and tears over centuries, and wish to impose their religion and their ideological worldview on the English.

Then there is the question of the response of those like the EDL who will use this as an excuse to attack those they see as being 'aliens' and 'the problem'. Their actions will not improve matters. They will not 'drive the immigrants into the sea' and all they are likely to do is cause more distress and hardship. Burning, bombing or despoiling mosques will not change anything and simply gives those Muslims who seek it, the excuse to retailiate. I have little doubt that this is what supporters of the EDL seek to achieve, in the hope it will provide an excuse to take even more violent action against the immigrant community. These people simply do not care about the distress, the pain and suffering their actions will bring the Drummer Rigby's family, or to the victims of their actions.

Drummer Rigby is the victim of an unspeakable act of terrorism, the perpetrators, planners and supporters of which are resident in the UK. It is time the community they come from decided where its loyalties lie. It is time our own politicians stopped pretending everything is fine and good and that "mulitculturalism" is the answer to everything, and made it plain to those who commit treason that it will not be tolerated any longer.

My prayers are with Drummer Rigby's family and friends, and with his colleagues in his Regiment. He died a terrible death at the hands of a pair of evil and misguided men. Now we must wait for justice to run its course.

UPDATE:

This article in the Evening Standard gives a great deal more information and food for thought.

A further treatise on the Blog Cranmer provides a great deal more.