Datasets:
anhtunguyen98
/
LLM-SWP

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
146k
A subsequent report entitled "Strengthening American Science", was submitted to President Eisenhower in December 1958. This report led, by Executive Order of President Eisenhower on March 13, 1959, to the formation of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. One of the early actions of this council was the establishment of a "Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development" (CCMRD), which was chaired by John W. Williams, Director of Research of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The ultimate outcome was the establishment of three university based Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs) in mid 1960 under the supervision of ARPA., The idea of an interdisciplinary laboratory in the solid state and materials sciences had already proved extremely successful in industrial laboratory settings (such as the Bell Laboratories and others) leading, for example, to the development of the transistor and the laser.
The establishment of such laboratories in an academic environment arose naturally from the demands of the post-Sputnik era for a large, highly trained, scientific workforce. American universities were ideally positioned to provide the opportunity to combine their educational mission with the planned development of larger, modern state-of-the-art experimental facilities. The Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs) 1960-1972 The creation of three Interdisciplinary laboratories, at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Northwestern University, was officially announced by ARPA on July 11, 1960. The contracts required that these universities "shall establish an interdisciplinary materials research program and shall furnish the necessary personnel and facilities for the conduct of research in the science of materials..." In the following year (1961) eight additional IDLs were created: Brown University, University of Chicago, Harvard, University of Maryland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of North Carolina, Purdue University, and Stanford University.
A 12th IDL was added at the University of Illinois in 1962, which was administered by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Subsequently, there were three more AEC contracts and two contracts through NASA. The role of the AEC in establishing a strong materials research community was well known since the advent of nuclear reactors and the importance of materials in reactor cost, efficiency, and safety. As early as 1955 John von Neumann, renowned mathematician and contributor to the Manhattan Project, in his role as commissioner of the AEC and member of the AEC General Advisory Committee (GAC), strongly endorsed a materials-focused institute in an academic setting.
The impact of the IDLs on the training of students was significant. By 1969 over 360 new doctorate degrees were awarded. A report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that these center based programs were instrumental in defining "materials science and engineering" as a new interdisciplinary activity which was evidenced by a rapid increase of materials science departments between 1960 and 1970 and beyond. In addition, to the building of new facilities infrastructure these centers of excellence led to the training of not only materials scientists, but also physicists, chemists, engineers and other professionals. The National Academy study noted that though the IDLs were considered a success, there was room for growth of interdisciplinary collaborations among faculty from different university departments.
However, it was acknowledged that joint block funding and joint use of shared experimental facilities by students and faculty from diverse departments had planted the seeds for increased interdisciplinarity in materials research. The Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) 1972-1994 In late 1969 an amendment to the Military Authorization Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Mansfield, placed restrictions on the funding of long-term basic research by agencies of the Department of Defense, including ARPA/DARPA. (ARPA was changed to DARPA in 1972). Consequently, a decision was made in 1970 to transfer the IDLs to the National Science Foundation. The block type IDL grant for multidisciplinary research and shared facilities would mean a distinct departure of NSF's funding approach at that time which was support of predominantly small, single investigator grants in a particular discipline.
After an in-depth review by NSF of the IDL program a transfer of the then existing 12 IDLs to NSF was recommended. However, the transfer came with several major critical provisions. These included the following: "The laboratories, now renamed 'Materials Research Laboratories', would retain locally administered block (or 'core') funding intended to 'facilitate research in materials science and engineering which is either difficult or unfeasible to carry out under traditional funding of individual research.' Most importantly, the new component added by NSF was that 'scientific excellence is viewed as a necessary, but no longer sufficient, condition to qualify for MRL core support.'
In addition, the MRLs would be judged by their ability to foster 'coherent, multidisciplinary and multi-investigator projects requiring the expertise of two or more materials related disciplines.' These so-called thrust groups are the heart of the current core funding at MRLs; at their best they have achieved a transformation in the way materials research is done at universities and in the way graduate education proceeds." Acceptance by NSF of the new materials laboratories in 1972 led to the creation of the Division of Materials Research (DMR). Its initial portfolio consisted of the MRL program as well as individual investigator programs closely related to materials science which were drawn from other parts of NSF.
Initially, the MRL program made up approximately 40% of the DMR budget. By 1985, with the growth of individual investigator and small group programs, the MRL program was funded at a level of about 20% of the total DMR budget. Between 1972 and 1985, a number of additional MRLs were added and some of the existing centers were phased out. The following table summarizes this information: TABLE 1 Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs) and Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) 1960-1996. Laboratories were identified as IDLs between 1960 and 1972 and MRLs starting in 1972. Laboratories terminated in 1994 and 1996 were eligible to participate in competition with other institutions for the new Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) in 1994 and 1996, respectively.
MRL technical accomplishments are significant and have been detailed in a number of studies. Another important impact has been the cultural change at U.S. universities in how research could be conducted across traditional departmental boundaries. This trend was initiated by the IDLs but greatly strengthened by the MRL program because of the new NSF guidelines concerning requirements for interdisciplinarity. A new generation of students would be trained in a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary environment and the experiences of the IDL/MRL programs in the fields of materials and condensed matter sciences would be the proving ground for other center type endeavors in a wide range of fields.
Impact of IDLs/MRLs on other NSF Centers The mid-1980s saw a convergence of a number of favorable trends for the establishments of NSF center based activities in a wide range of different fields. There was a strong interest in government investments in basic science that could be leveraged by matching funds from industry and other sources. In addition, the role of multidisciplinary teams in conducting research and educating students was widely appreciated. The first new centers-based initiative at NSF was the creation of the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) in 1985. Although the role of the previous 25-year history of funding the materials laboratories in preparing universities to accept a wider role in conducting interdisciplinary research was instrumental for the creation of new types of centers, this historical connection was not widely appreciated.
Both NSF and the Office of Science Technology Policy, viewed the creation of ERCs as the major new initiative in 1985 for leveraging NSF funds. The following description of the announcement of the ERC program in 1985 is illuminating: "George A. Keyworth II, President's Reagan Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science Technology Policy, refers to the creation of the ERCs by the National Science Foundation as: 'the single most important thing that we've done as an Administration in increasing efficiency and effectiveness of federal R&D dollars.' He said the centers address a widely recognized need in various fields of science and technology: 'Continued pushing of the frontiers in those fields was constrained by the difficulty of assembling multidisciplinary teams to work on the problems.
Our universities are, justifiably and understandably, structured to pursue disciplinary research. On the other hand, we increasingly find ourselves as a nation confronting the solving of problems that have technically based solutions. We need to expose our young people to a problem-solving environment....These Centers - I'd rather call them Science and Technology Centers - are multidisciplinary mechanism by which chemists, physicists, neurobiologists, engineers, etc, can get together and solve exciting, intellectually demanding, real-world problems.' " It was pointed out by William O. Baker that the above comments about the economic potential of the ERCs are nearly the same as those describing the original IDLs in the early 1960s.
Baker concludes that "it is refreshing indeed to find such current agreement on the concept that has involved so significant a portion of our best academic talent." The first six ERC awards were made in 1985. These awards are generally for five years with one other 5 year renewal possible for a total funding length of 10 years. In the same year NSF made five-year awards for five supercomputing centers and made plans for the development of a program for Science and Technology Centers (STCs) that would ultimately touch all areas of NSF programs. The first 11 STCs were established in 1988.
The 13 centers that are part of the 2013 class of STCs cover a wide range of subjects ranging from studies of brain and intelligence to modeling of atmospheric processes to the study of quantum materials. Because of concerns about the impact on center funding on individual investigator awards the National Science Board required that center awards cannot be renewed without open recompetition. Since the establishment of ERCs and STCs a large number of other centers have been established across all major NSF disciplines and now represent an essential element of the NSF funding portfolio. Establishment of MRSECs (1994 - 1996) As can be seen from Table 1 the majority of MRLs were started between 1972 and 1984 with only a few later additions.
The MRL competition of 1992 led to the start of only one new center: the MRL at the University of California Santa Barbara. The lack of new awards, coupled with the National Science Board re-competition requirement, provided one impetus for the development of the NSF Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC) program. Previously, MRLs, once funded, could be continually supported without a need to compete against other center candidates. The MRSEC program limits awards to a fixed time period, currently six years. Additional support is possible, but only on the basis of a new proposal that competes nationally against all other applicants.
The transition from the MRL to the MRSEC programs occurred through two competitions held in 1993/4 and 1995/96, respectively. The competitions were open to all US academic institutions, including those with then current MRL awards. Institutions with awards made under the Materials Research Group (MRG) program, which was initiated at NSF in 1984, were eligible to participate in the competition. All MRL and MRG awards were discontinued after 1996. In all, 10 MRLs and 17 MRGs participated in the competitions of 1994-96. As seen in Table 2, nine of the MRLs were successful in transitioning to MRSECs, and six MRSEC awards went to institutions with prior MRG awards.
Importantly, new MRSEC awards were made to six institutions that never had any substantial NSF center or large group support in materials research. TABLE 2 Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers established after open competitions in 1994 and 1996. Those institutions with existing Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) or Materials Research Groups (MRGs) in 1994 or 1996 are indicated, while "new" refers to institutions that did not have a current MRL or MRG award. The MRL and MRG programs were discontinued after 1996. Subsequent MRSEC competitions were held every two years (with a four-year award cycle) and, every three years starting in 2002 (with a six-year award cycle).
The required open competition for any center that wishes to be supported for more than the initial six-year award period is consistent with the re-competition requirements set by the National Science Board. National Academy Study of MRSEC program (2007) An assessment of the MRSEC program was published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007. The Executive Summary summarizes the impact of the program: "MRSEC awards continue to be in great demand. The intense competition for them within the community indicates a strong perceived value."
The report lists a number of key areas where the MRSEC program has an impact, including providing the resources and environment that fosters: interdisciplinary, collaborative research; interdisciplinary training for the future scientific and technical workforce; rapid response to new ideas, including support for higher-risk projects, than is possible with single-investigator grants; increased institutional, local, and/or state support for materials research; attraction of high quality students and junior faculty; development of infrastructure helpful for organizing and managing experimental and computational facilities and educational and industrial outreach. Among the report's recommendations are an increase in the grant size of the centers, which would allow adequate resources for education and outreach, while ensuring that the support for research activities is not compromised.
Recent MRSEC competitions have responded to the recommendations by increasing award sizes, notably by requiring that each new award will support a minimum of two interdisciplinary research groups (IRGs). In addition, the NAS study recommends strengthening the cooperative aspects of MRSECs and continue the progress made in the past toward building a national cooperating network of centers. The report concludes that such a network, once fully established, would "strengthen materials science and engineering in the United States as a discipline and as a factor in U.S. competitiveness." See also Clyde L. Bryant, "Up Close: Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers-U.S. National Network for Materials Science", .
"MRS Bulletin 27, 637-645(2002)" External links Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers "National Science Foundation website" References Category:Research institutes in the United States Category:Materials science institutes
Anna Elisabeth "Anneliese" Michel (21 September 1952 – 1 July 1976) was a German woman who underwent Catholic exorcism rites during the year before her death. She was diagnosed with epileptic psychosis (temporal lobe epilepsy) and had a history of psychiatric treatment, which was overall not effective. When Michel was sixteen, she experienced a seizure and was diagnosed with psychosis caused by temporal lobe epilepsy. Shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with depression and was treated by a psychiatric hospital. By the time she was twenty, she had become intolerant of various religious objects and began to hear voices. Her condition worsened despite medication, and she became suicidal, also displaying other symptoms, for which she took medication as well.
After taking psychiatric medications for five years failed to improve her symptoms, Michel and her family became convinced she was possessed by a demon. As a result, her family appealed to the Catholic Church for an exorcism. While rejected at first, after much hesitation, two priests got permission from the local bishop in 1975. Anneliese Michel stopped eating food and died due to malnourishment and dehydration. Michel's parents and the two Roman Catholic priests were found guilty of negligent homicide and were sentenced to six months in jail (reduced to three years of probation), as well as a fine. The 2005 film The Exorcism of Emily Rose is based on her story.
Early life Born as Anna Elisabeth Michel on 21 September 1952 in Leiblfing, Bavaria, West Germany, to a Roman Catholic family, Michel was brought up along with three sisters by her parents, Josef and Anna. She was religious and went to Mass twice a week. When she was sixteen, she suffered a severe convulsion and was diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy. In 1973, Michel graduated and joined the University of Würzburg. Her classmates later described her as "withdrawn and very religious". Psychiatric treatment In June 1970, Michel suffered a third seizure at the psychiatric hospital where she had been staying.
She was prescribed anti-convulsion drugs for the first time, including Dilantin, which did not alleviate the problem. She began describing seeing "devil faces" at various times of the day. That same month, she was prescribed another drug, Aolept, which is similar to chlorpromazine and is used in the treatment of various psychoses including schizophrenia, disturbed behavior and delusions. By 1973, she suffered from depression and began hallucinating while praying, and complained about hearing voices telling her that she was "damned" and would "rot in hell". Michel's treatment in a psychiatric hospital did not improve her health and her depression worsened.
Long-term treatment did not help either, and she grew increasingly frustrated with the medical intervention, taking pharmacological drugs for five years. Michel became intolerant of Christian sacred places and objects, such as the crucifix. Michel went to San Damiano with a family friend who regularly organized Christian pilgrimages. Her escort concluded that she was suffering from demonic possession because she was unable to walk past a crucifix and refused to drink the water of a Christian holy spring: Michel and her family, as well as her community, became convinced and consulted several priests, asking for an exorcism. The priests declined, recommended the continuation of medical treatment, and informed the family that exorcisms required the bishop's permission.
In the Catholic Church, official approval for an exorcism is given when the person strictly meets the set criteria, then they are considered to be suffering from possession () and under demonic control. Intense dislike for religious objects and supernatural powers are some of the first indications. Michel worsened physically and displayed aggression, self-injury, drank her own urine and ate insects. In November 1973, Michel started her treatment with Tegretol, an anti-seizure drug and mood stabilizer. She was prescribed anti-psychotic drugs during the course of the religious rites and took them frequently until some time before her death. Despite taking these neuroleptic medications, Michel's symptoms worsened and she began to manifest "growling, seeing demons, throwing things."
Exorcism The priest Ernst Alt, whom they met, on seeing her declared that "she didn't look like an epileptic" and that he did not see her having seizures. Alt believed she was suffering from demonic possession and urged the local bishop to allow an exorcism. In a letter to Alt in 1975, Michel wrote, "I am nothing; everything about me is vanity. What should I do? I have to improve. You pray for me" and also once told him, "I want to suffer for other people...but this is so cruel". In September of the same year, Bishop Josef Stangl granted the priest Arnold Renz permission to exorcise according to the Rituale Romanum of 1614, but ordered total secrecy.
Renz performed the first session on 24 September. Michel began talking increasingly about "dying to atone for the wayward youth of the day and the apostate priests of the modern church", and she refused to eat towards the end. At this point, her parents stopped consulting doctors on her request and relied solely on the exorcism rites. 67 exorcism sessions; one or two each week, lasting up to four hours, were performed over about ten months in 1975–1976. Death On 1 July 1976, Michel died in her home. The autopsy report stated the cause was malnutrition and dehydration due to being in a semi-starvation state for almost a year while the rites of exorcism were performed.
She weighed 30 kilograms (68 pounds), suffering broken knees due to continuous genuflections. She was unable to move without assistance, and was reported to have contracted pneumonia. Prosecution After an investigation, the state prosecutor maintained that Michel's death could have been prevented even one week before she died. In 1976, the state charged Michel's parents and priests Ernst Alt and Arnold Renz with negligent homicide. During the case Michel's body was exhumed and tapes were played to the court of the exorcisms over the eleven months which led to her death. The parents were defended by Erich Schmidt-Leichner; their lawyers were sponsored by the Church.
The state recommended that no involved parties be jailed; instead, the recommended sentence for the priests was a fine, while the prosecution concluded that the parents should be exempt from punishment as they had "suffered enough", which is a criterion in German penal law, cf. § 60 StGB. Trial The trial started on 30 March 1978 in the district court and drew intense interest. Before the court, doctors testified that Michel was not possessed, stating that this was a psychological effect because of her strict religious upbringing and her epilepsy, but the doctor Richard Roth, who was asked for medical help by Alt, allegedly told her during the exorcism, that "there is no injection against the devil, Anneliese".
Schmidt-Leichner said that the exorcism was legal and that the German constitution protected citizens in the unrestricted exercise of their religious beliefs. The defense played tapes recorded at the exorcism sessions, sometimes featuring what was claimed to be "demons arguing", to assert their claim that Michel was possessed. Both priests said the demons identified themselves as Lucifer, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Belial, Legion, and Nero among others; they further said that she was finally freed because of the exorcism just before her death. The bishop said that he was not aware of her alarming health condition when he approved of the exorcism and did not testify.
The accused were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and were sentenced to six months in jail (which was later suspended) and three years of probation. It was a far lighter sentence than anticipated, but it was more than requested by the prosecution, who had asked that the priests only be fined and that the parents be found guilty but not punished. The Church approving such an old fashioned exorcism rite drew public and media attention. According to John M. Duffey, the case was a misidentification of mental illness. Exhumation and aftermath After the trial, the parents asked the authorities for permission to exhume the remains of their daughter.
The official reason presented by the parents to authorities was that Michel had been buried in undue hurry in a cheap coffin. Almost two years after the burial, on 25 February 1978, her remains were replaced in a new oak coffin lined with tin. The official reports state that the body bore the signs of consistent deterioration. The accused exorcists were discouraged from seeing the remains of Michel. Arnold Renz later stated that he had been prevented from entering the mortuary. Her grave became and remains a pilgrimage site. The number of officially sanctioned exorcisms decreased in Germany due to this case, in spite of Pope Benedict XVI's support for wider use of it compared to Pope John Paul II, who in 1999 made the rules stricter, involving only rare cases.
On 6 June 2013, a fire broke out in the house where Anneliese Michel lived, and, although the local police said it was a case of arson, some locals attributed it to the exorcism case. In popular culture Three films, The Exorcism of Emily Rose (which focuses on both the court case and the exorcism), Requiem and Anneliese: The Exorcist Tapes, are loosely based on Michel's story. First Issue, the debut album from John Lydon's post Sex Pistols band Public Image Ltd, contains the song "Annalisa," about the case. The case and the theories surrounding it were discussed in season 1, episode 4 of the BuzzFeed web series BuzzFeed Unsolved: Supernatural, entitled "The Chilling Exorcism of Anneliese Michel," released on 14 November 2016.
The case and its history was also covered in Case 11: Anneliese Michel, a March 2016 episode of the Casefile True Crime Podcast. The exorcism was also covered in the podcast My Favorite Murder in episode 66, "The Devil's Number." The band Ice Nine Kills used audio clippings from Anneliese's exorcism in their song "Communion of the Cursed." See also Exorcism in Christianity Notes References Further reading Goodman, Felicitas D. (1988). How about Demons? : Possession and Exorcism in the Modern World. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. . Getler, Micheal.
"Cries of a Woman Possessed : German Court Hears Tapes in Exorcism Death Trial" in The Washington Post (21 April 1978) External links Casefile True Crime Podcast - Case 11: Anneliese Michel - 19 March 2016 Category:1952 births Category:1976 deaths Category:1976 crimes in Germany Category:20th-century German people Category:20th-century German women Category:Exorcised people Category:German Roman Catholics Category:German victims of crime Category:Manslaughter victims Category:People from Straubing-Bogen Category:People with epilepsy Category:University of Würzburg alumni Category:Demonic possession Category:Deaths by starvation
In electricity (electromagnetism), the electric susceptibility (; Latin: susceptibilis "receptive") is a dimensionless proportionality constant that indicates the degree of polarization of a dielectric material in response to an applied electric field. The greater the electric susceptibility, the greater the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the material (and store energy). It is in this way that the electric susceptibility influences the electric permittivity of the material and thus influences many other phenomena in that medium, from the capacitance of capacitors to the speed of light.
Definition of volume susceptibility Electric susceptibility is defined as the constant of proportionality (which may be a matrix) relating an electric field E to the induced dielectric polarization density P such that: where is the polarization density; is the electric permittivity of free space (electric constant); is the electric susceptibility; is the electric field. The susceptibility is related to its relative permittivity (dielectric constant) by: So in the case of a vacuum: At the same time, the electric displacement D is related to the polarization density P by: Where Molecular polarizability A similar parameter exists to relate the magnitude of the induced dipole moment p of an individual molecule to the local electric field E that induced the dipole.
This parameter is the molecular polarizability (α), and the dipole moment resulting from the local electric field Elocal is given by: This introduces a complication however, as locally the field can differ significantly from the overall applied field. We have: where P is the polarization per unit volume, and N is the number of molecules per unit volume contributing to the polarization. Thus, if the local electric field is parallel to the ambient electric field, we have: Thus only if the local field equals the ambient field can we write: Otherwise, one should find a relation between the local and the macroscopic field.
In some materials, the Clausius–Mossotti relation holds and reads Ambiguity in the definition The definition of the molecular polarizability depends on the author. In the above definition, and are in SI units and the molecular polarizability has the dimension of a volume (m3). Another definition would be to keep SI units and to integrate into : In this second definition, the polarizability would have the SI unit of C.m2/V. Yet another definition exists where and are expressed in the cgs system and is still defined as Using the cgs units gives the dimension of a volume, as in the first definition, but with a value that is lower.
Nonlinear susceptibility In many materials the polarizability starts to saturate at high values of electric field. This saturation can be modelled by a nonlinear susceptibility. These susceptibilities are important in nonlinear optics and lead to effects such as second-harmonic generation (such as used to convert infrared light into visible light, in green laser pointers). The standard definition of nonlinear susceptibilities in SI units is via a Taylor expansion of the polarization's reaction to electric field: (Except in ferroelectric materials, the built-in polarization is zero, .) The first susceptibility term, , corresponds to the linear susceptibility described above. While this first term is dimensionless, the subsequent nonlinear susceptibilities have units of .
The nonlinear susceptibilities can be generalized to anisotropic materials in which the susceptibility is not uniform in every direction. In these materials, each susceptibility becomes an n+1-rank tensor. Dispersion and causality In general, a material cannot polarize instantaneously in response to an applied field, and so the more general formulation as a function of time is That is, the polarization is a convolution of the electric field at previous times with time-dependent susceptibility given by . The upper limit of this integral can be extended to infinity as well if one defines for . An instantaneous response corresponds to Dirac delta function susceptibility .
It is more convenient in a linear system to take the Fourier transform and write this relationship as a function of frequency. Due to the convolution theorem, the integral becomes a product, This frequency dependence of the susceptibility leads to frequency dependence of the permittivity. The shape of the susceptibility with respect to frequency characterizes the dispersion properties of the material. Moreover, the fact that the polarization can only depend on the electric field at previous times (i.e. for ), a consequence of causality, imposes Kramers–Kronig constraints on the susceptibility . See also Application of tensor theory in physics Magnetic susceptibility Maxwell's equations Permittivity Clausius-Mossotti relation Linear response function Green–Kubo relations References Category:Electric and magnetic fields in matter Category:Physical quantities
Non-possession is a philosophy that holds that no one or anything possesses anything. It is one of the principles of Satyagraha, a philosophical system based on various religious and philosophical traditions originating in India and Asia Minor, and put into practice by Mahatma Gandhi as part of his nonviolent resistance. This particular iteration of aparigraha is distinct because it is a component of Gandhi's active non-violent resistance to social problems permeating India. As such, its conception is tempered with western law. Non-possession is, by definition, concerned with defining the concept of possession. Non-possession does not deny the existence of the concept of possession.
Gandhi intertwined non-possession and voluntary poverty in application, but living according to the guidelines of non-possession is not the same as living in poverty. In practice, the principle of taking what one needs (rather than less than or more than), is essential to the viability of non-possession/ aparigraha, therefore, an essential component. Like possession, humans (and other animals, and entities) deviate from this because of social conditioning. This practice is only a principle when one is not aware of or does not acknowledge all events which have either direct or indirect impact on oneself. Awareness and acknowledgment occurs without specific effort when an entity develops a broadened awareness of all events which have a direct or indirect impact on the individual entity; the ability to process this information, (see relationships, derive meaning); the ability to translate the conclusion of the above into actions.
The action of taking enough to continue working but not more than one needs, is a generalized description of one of those actions. Understanding that no one or anything possesses anything is a specific condition which occurs when one can derive meaning and see the relationships between more events from different perspectives. Possession Possession denotes the de facto claim on another entity based on exclusive access. If access is non-exclusive of some entity, then the object in question is not being possessed. The concepts of possession and ownership often overlap, but are not the same. Ownership takes into account the entitlement to priority of access, which are necessarily based on agreements and other mutually consenting social protocols.
If more than one entity has access to something simultaneously, and one or more of the entities assert priority of access (exclusivity) over the other(s), or if some external force endows or demands priority of one entity, a group of entity, over some other(s), then there is conflict. Even if those who are excluded concur to such claims, their de facto access will present conflict by necessity. In the event that more than one entity has access to something simultaneously, exclusion occurs when: (a) one or more of the entities assert priority of access over the other(s), (b) some external force endows or demands priority of 1 entity, a group of entities, over some other(s).
Even if those who are excluded concur to the claimed priority, the de facto simultaneous access necessarily present conflict between claim to priority and what actually happens. Note that the conflict begins with assumed priority not matching empirical reality. Also note that claim can only occur with communicative acts or verbal communication. Concurrence also requires communication, but one cannot concur unless a claim has been posed first (passive action). The concept of ownership could have been invented, in part, to resolve this dilemma, by instating a system of social protocols. Ownership as resolution Ownership increases the frequency of consensus over disagreement.
Using social protocols, ownership establishes one or a group of entities' permanent priority of access to something. Unless the owner relinquishes this right, this established priority stands regardless of empirical phenomena. A dilemma arises when an entity enters into the sphere of a consensus with no prior knowledge of the agreement. Empirical phenomena would be the basis for both conceptual and empirical reality. An example of this is Britain entering India. With the simultaneous desire to procure resources already claimed by the aggregate Indian society, and lack of desire to participate in Indian society, Britain's subjects actively challenged established ownership.
The act also defined all inhabitants, including not only those actively participating in Hindu society, but also those participating passively (Untouchables,) as part of an aggregate entity. Before asserting its own ownership upon said resources, British interests challenged existing Indian society's ownership by de facto possession (by virtue of being present in India,) India's lack of utilization for said resources (contrasting with Britain's moral and lawful utilization of them, as concurred by its peer nations,) and the inability for India to counter-challenge Britain legally and philosophically. Non-possession is another concept which can resolve this dilemma. If claims always match empirical reality, then there is no conflict.
Eliminating exclusion, claims to priority of access will always be based on empirical reality. Non-possession as resolution If claims always match empirical reality, then there is no conflict. Boundaries are a given. Possession as the defining mechanism for boundaries is also a given. If entities have no cause to endow or assert priority of access over the other(s), cause to exclude is removed. The goal of claiming access will then not be to exclude. The goal of the claims will still remain: (a) one or more of the entities assert priority of access over the other(s), (b) some external force endows or demands priority of one entity, a group of entities, over some other(s).
The motivation to establish priority of access will always be based on empirical reality. By extension, pre-established hierarchies of access (ownership) will not increase the frequency of consensus unless the hierarchies support empirical reality. Empirical reality always takes precedence over conceptual reality. Non-possession is another concept which resolves the dilemma which arises when reasoned reality conflicts with empirical reality. Non-possession provides for conditions under which none of the entities have cause to assert exclusivity which is not concurred by others. Contrast with some entity which has ownership of something; if some other entity has possession of that thing, the owner has the right to concede or deny the legitimacy of that other entity's possession.
Possession is a necessary component of ownership, but ownership is not a necessary component of possession. This does not mean that something cannot be possessed by some entity other than its owner. It means that the owner of a thing has the exclusive right to concede or deny the legitimacy of anyone who possesses this thing, even if the owner has no intention of accessing the object of possession. Further, the owner has the ability to concede or deny his/her/its own legitimacy of possessing the object of possession. In application, ownership is often asserted when it is challenged by possession (de facto claim to access exclusive of the owner.)
Non-possession denies the exclusive access of an entity by another entity. To paraphrase: non-possession says that no entity has the right to exclusive access to another entity, either by social agreement, or de facto exclusive access. Challenge posed toward possession By definition, non-possession is the opposite of possession. There is inherent conflict between the two approaches to organizing priority of access. It is notable that practitioners of non-possession acknowledge the existence of possession. See #Theft. Those practicing possession do not necessarily acknowledge non-possession for several reasons.
Here, they are defined by conditions occurring within different layers of an individual entity's experience: not aware of non-possession as an amalgamated concept, (contrast with the awareness of the complex concept of possession); non-possession presents logical conflict in the cognitive process when one comes into contact with issues of boundaries and priority of access, therefore, the concept (alternative) is consistently disposed of during the cognitive process; non-possession presents interpersonal conflict when one is engaged in social activities. Non-stealing The practical implications of non-possession can be clarified by defining another principle of Satyagraha: non-stealing. Non-stealing is the practice of not breaching an entity's entitlement of or sense of entitlement toward something.
Theft has to do with breaching ownership: both possession and sense of entitlement. Non-possession only challenges the idea of possession, not entitlement. There are concepts associated with ownership which do not conflict with non-possession, such as willingness to cultivate that which is owned, recognition of benefit conferred upon the owner, positive opinion and/ or feelings toward that which is owned, negative opinion and/ or feelings etc. Under non-possession, these reactions are not (and cannot be) reserved toward possessions. As such, traditional definitions of theft and the reasons for not stealing require clarification. Sense of entitlement Sense of entitlement has to do with emotional attachment beyond practical benefit and usefulness to an entity's perceivable physical survival.
The belief that one deserves to receive an opportunity or reward. The myriad of ways a sense of entitlement can arise include legal claim, length of time spent with the object, birthright, labour exerted, labour not exerted, comparative social standing, inheritance, perspective, lack of perspective, etc. Practitioners of religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism, even the three major western religious traditions consciously aspire to extricate from or modify non-practical emotional attachment in some form. There are branches of philosophy which deal exclusively with such modifications such as Stoicism. Non-stealing takes the approach of applied Hinduism in that it recognizes that not everyone would either choose to extricate from or would be successful extricating from attachment at any given time.
As well, possession exists de facto, and is often cited as support of entitlement to an object of possession. Theft In the absence of possession (and ownership by extension,) theft would be impossible. But theft is possible under the non-possession worldview. This is possible given that not everyone in the world practices non-possession. It is also difficult to put non-possession into practice under existing socio-economic systems. People have the right to, and likely have to define their boundaries out of necessity. All historically recorded cultures either prescribe laws regarding individuals' personal boundaries, or imply the limits of the individual through practices.
Absence of conventions and protocol undermine the ability for humans to understand each other at the conscious level, without which, civilization is not possible. Boundaries between individual entities is an essential component of any grouping, including civilization; they exist in empirical reality and by definition. Across cultures, the definition of these boundaries can be explicit, implicit, or entirely personal. The United States Constitution has provisions for rights to personal property, but no explicit provisions for boundaries. Boundaries are one of the essential given conditions for possession to be possible. The reverse is not true. Possession deals with the relationship of something to boundaries, a relationship in which boundaries provide the principle to qualify whether something is being possessed or not being possessed.
A boundary can be defined to be independent of the idea of possession: the threshold between two identifiable, separate entities. Logically, the existence of theft would be invalid If there are no rules as to how one can and cannot define boundaries. Without the ability to define a boundary, there is no way to discern where one entity begins and the other ends, therefore, not possible to define possession. Without possession, there can be no ownership, claim to ownership, or theft. Hypothetical example: If some entity has the ability to lay claim to any object without contest, theft is still possible.
One can steal from this entity if one is not part of this entity. Also, that the entity is empowered to lay claim necessitates that there are objects which the entity can lay claim upon, therefore, objects which this entity does not possess. Boundaries may exist between objects before the entity lays claim to them, (that is, if it intends to lay claim to them.) Breach of these boundaries constitute theft. A hypothetical entity empowered to lay claim upon any object can also approach a grey area between legitimate possession and theft if its possession of an object is not clearly defined, that is, if this entity itself has doubts as to whether it possesses the object in question.
Boundaries exist in empirical reality because people and things obviously do not melt together upon touching. While some systems of thought would contest this even on a limited level, and there are counterexamples, especially when dealing with ideas, in general, it is accepted that boundaries exist at least in some areas of consensus reality. Non-possession does not directly address boundaries, therefore, it neither negates nor confirms the concept. The very existence of boundaries almost necessitates possession, (add graphic) but things can exist on boundaries. Also, boundaries are sometimes defined by possession. Taking into account both the logical provisions and also that non-possession is a social philosophy specifically applicable to sentient beings (e.g.
people), the act of breaching another entity's sense of entitlement constitutes theft. The specific possessive act of attachment is involuntary, it cannot stop unless the peripheral stimulus which causes it is also removed. The peripheral stimulus can be something which supports the very fabric of consensus reality, like boundaries. As such, non-possession, as a social philosophy, does not and cannot challenge the peripheral stimulus. To paraphrase: attachment begets entitlement in a non-logical, non-physical sense. Given the above, the boundary that is requisite for entitlement to exist on the non-logical, non-physical level is outside of non-possession's scope. This is not the case for aparigraha.
Non-stealing is a necessary component in addition to non-possession because of Satyagraha's applicative nature. Non-possession does not negate boundaries. Gandhi's view was that possession is more trouble than it is worth. The possession of anything then became a troublesome thing and a burden. Exploring the cause of that joy, I found that if I kept anything as my own, I had to defend it against the whole world. . . . And I said to myself: if [other people] want it and would take it, they do so not from any malicious motive but . . . because theirs was a greater need than mine.
Jainism In Jainism, non-possession is one of the five vows (mahavratas) that both ascetics and householders (śrāvaka) have to observe. Jain texts mentions that "attachment to possessions (parigraha) is of two kinds: attachment to internal possessions (ābhyantara parigraha), and attachment to external possessions (bāhya parigraha). The fourteen internal possessions are: Wrong belief The three sex-passions Male sex-passion Female sex-passion Neuter sex-passion Six defects Laughter Liking Disliking Sorrow Fear Disgust Four passions Anger Pride Deceitfulness Greed External possessions are divided into two subclasses, the non-living and the living. According to Jain texts, both internal and external possessions are proved to be hiṃsā (injury).
Wealth and poverty Neither wealth nor poverty necessarily follow non-possession, however, wealth and poverty necessarily exist within the non-possession view. Non-possession is, by definition, concerned with defining (material) possession. As such, wealth and poverty (relative abundance and lack) closely relate to non-possession. Mohandas Gandhi intertwined the concepts of non-possession and poverty. Non-possession resolves the sense of injustice of groups which perceive distribution of wealth not in their favour; and it resolves the sense of entitlement of groups which perceived that they benefitted. It does so by removing quantitative material reward as benefit. If all parties in a finite system is on board with non-possession, there is no wealth or poverty.
Practitioners of aparigraha are generally not considered to be in poverty or wealthy. Colonial India Under the caste system, class serves an integral role in the distribution of wealth. Gandhi, a Brahmin, joined the untouchables in poverty in order to create a level playing field both for those who considered him to be peer and for those who considered him to be superior. Furthermore, this clearly demonstrated leadership through full participation. Contrast with control through shepherding, or non-participatory policy making and directing (management). The latter would evoke British rule, which is especially meaningful for traditionally powerful and privileged castes. It would also evoke to Hinduism practitioners their own attitudes and relationship with castes, both above and below them in social stature, as well as with dalits.
Poverty was an essential consequence of being an untouchable. Under Gandhi's chosen circumstances, non-possession and the accompanying ideologies of Satyagraha both resulted in and were caused by poverty. It is notable that the act itself drew attention without specific promotion, and simultaneously self-perpetuated only if witnessed. Purity of message was Gandhi's motivation for expressing non-possession through extreme material poverty. Non-possession applied Applied to a different social environment, poverty may or may not result from the practice of non-possession. Fluctuations in ease of access to resources necessarily occur. Perceived shortages in a non-possession economy does not prompt policies which would prioritize access to resources to privileged groups.
To elaborate on privilege, since no one possesses anything, privilege will not be marked by comparative wealthiness. By extension, it implies eliminating the propensity to distribute resources by first referencing previous points of depletion and accumulation. Whether resources will be distributed to where they would maximize benefits to society overall is outside the scope of non-possession. Satyagraha is based on a complex system of philosophy based on social and religious traditions of India, religious traditions of the West, and legal traditions of Europe. While there are no explicit provisions for how resources will be distributed, it is notable that karma would resolve the need for any and all artificial intervention in distribution.
In order to transition from an economy based on possession, to one which is not based on possession, quantitative material reward has to be addressed. Quantitative material reward is the primary motivating factor for production and enterprise. Employees are paid a salary in exchange for services rendered. Businesses generate quantitative revenue for its owners (stockholders.) Non-possession does not directly address business and commerce. Meanwhile, there are occupations which require motivations other than material reward. Those who produce without explicitly requiring material reward are not ensured of sufficient material sustenance by virtue of the act of working, which ultimately stops these individuals and institutions from production.
Bridging the gap between those who understand work to be productivity for the sake of possessions (the production of possessions,) and the lack of resources for those aspiring to practice non-possession, Gandhi supported extensively practicing trusteeship in India. As with all philosophical concepts, non-possession works best if everyone within the finite system adopts this code of behaviour. See also civil disobedience non-violence nonviolent resistance property Some social and/ or economic strategies related to non-possession: Cooperative Non-profit Socialism Gift economy References Sources Category:Schools of economic thought Category:Gandhism
Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is a psychotherapy focused on modifying metacognitive beliefs that perpetuate states of worry, rumination and attention fixation. It was created by Adrian Wells based on an information processing model by Wells and Matthews. It is supported by scientific evidence from a large number of studies. The goals of MCT are first to discover what patients believe about their own thoughts and about how their mind works (called metacognitive beliefs), then to show the patient how these beliefs lead to unhelpful responses to thoughts that serve to unintentionally prolong or worsen symptoms, and finally to provide alternative ways of responding to thoughts in order to allow a reduction of symptoms.
In clinical practice, MCT is most commonly used for treating anxiety disorders such as social anxiety disorder, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), health anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as well as depression – though the model was designed to be transdiagnostic (meaning it focuses on common psychological factors thought to maintain all psychological disorders). History Metacognition, Greek for "after" (meta) "thought" (cognition), refers to the human capacity to be aware of and control one's own thoughts and internal mental processes. Metacognition has been studied for several decades by researchers, originally as part of developmental psychology and neuropsychology.
Examples of metacognition include a person knowing what thoughts are currently in their mind and knowing where the focus of their attention is, and a person's beliefs about their own thoughts (which may or may not be accurate). The first metacognitive interventions were devised for children with attentional disorders in the 1980s. A recent open-access review summarizes differences and similarities of metacognitive therapy, metacognitive training, cognitive-behavioral therapy and metacognitive reflection insight therapy. Model of mental disorders Self-Regulatory Executive Function model In the metacognitive model, symptoms are caused by a set of psychological processes called the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS). The CAS includes three main processes, each of which constitutes extended thinking in response to negative thoughts.
These three processes are: Worry/rumination Threat monitoring Coping behaviours that backfire All three are driven by patients' metacognitive beliefs, such as the belief that these processes will help to solve problems (although the processes all ultimately have the unintentional consequence of prolonging distress). Of particular importance in the model are negative metacognitive beliefs especially those concerning the uncontrollability and dangerousness of some thoughts. Executive functions are also believed to play a part in how you can focus and refocus on certain thoughts and mental modes. These mental modes can be categorized as object mode and metacognitive mode, which refers to the different types of relationships people can have towards thoughts.
All of the CAS, the metacognitive beliefs, the mental modes and the executive function together constitute the self-regulatory executive function model (S-REF). This is also known as the metacognitive model. In more recent work Wells has described in greater detail a metacognitive control system of the S-REF aimed at advancing research and treatment using metacognitive therapy. Therapeutic intervention MCT is a time-limited therapy which usually takes place between 8–12 sessions. The therapist uses discussions with the patient to discover their metacognitive beliefs, experiences and strategies. The therapist then shares the model with the patient, pointing out how their particular symptoms are caused and maintained.
Therapy then proceeds with the introduction of techniques tailored to the patient's difficulties aimed at changing how the patient relates to thoughts and that bring extended thinking under control. Experiments are used to challenge metacognitive beliefs (e.g. "You believe that if you worry too much you will go 'mad' – let's try worrying as much as possible for the next 5 minutes and see if there is any effect") and strategies such as attentional training technique and detached mindfulness (this is a distinct strategy from various other mindfulness techniques). Research Clinical trials (including randomized controlled trials) have found MCT to produce large clinically significant improvements across a range of mental health disorders, although as of 2014 the total number of subjects studied is small and a meta-analysis concluded that further study is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn regarding effectiveness.
A special issue of the journal Cognitive Therapy and Research was devoted to MCT research findings. A 2018 meta-analysis confirmed the effectiveness of MCT in the treatment of a variety of psychological complaints with depression and anxiety showing high effect sizes. In 2018–2020, a research topic in the journal Frontiers in Psychology highlighted the growing experimental, clinical, and neuropsychological evidence base for MCT. See also Meta-cognitions questionnaire References Further reading External links Category:Cognitive therapy
The Auxiliary Units or GHQ Auxiliary Units were specially-trained, highly-secret units created by the British government during the Second World War with the aim of using irregular warfare to help combat any invasion of the United Kingdom by Nazi Germany, which the Germans codenamed Operation Sea Lion. With the advantage of having witnessed the rapid fall of several Continental European nations, the United Kingdom was the only country during the war that was able to create a multilayered guerrilla force in anticipation of an invasion. The Auxiliary Units would fight as uniformed guerrillas during the military campaign. In the event of an invasion, all Auxillary Units would disappear into their operational bases and would not maintain contact with local Home Guard commanders, who should indeed be wholly unaware of their existence.
Although the Auxiliaries were Home Guard volunteers and wore Home Guard uniforms, they would not participate in the conventional phase of their town's defence but would be activated once the local Home Guard defence had been ended to inflict maximum mayhem and disruption over a further brief but violent period. They were not envisaged as a continuing resistance force against long-term occupation. Service in the Auxiliary Units was expected to be highly dangerous, with a projected life expectancy of just twelve days for its members, with orders to either shoot one another or use explosives to kill themselves if capture by an enemy force seemed likely.
Urged on by the War Office, Prime Minister Winston Churchill initiated the Auxiliary Units in the early summer of 1940. This was to counter the civilian Home Defence Scheme already established by SIS (MI6), but outside War Office control. The Auxiliary Units answered to GHQ Home Forces but were legally an integral part of the Home Guard. Churchill appointed Colonel Colin Gubbins to found the Auxiliary Units. Gubbins, a regular British Army soldier, had acquired considerable experience and expertise in guerrilla warfare during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919 and in the Irish War of Independence of 1919–1921.
Most recently, he had returned from Norway, where he headed the Independent Companies, the predecessors of the British Commandos. In November 1940, Gubbins moved to the Special Operations Executive (SOE). In modern times, the Auxiliary Units have sometimes misleadingly been referred to as the "British Resistance Organisation". That is a title was never used by the organization officially but reflects a subsequent misunderstanding of what their role might have been. Colloquially, members of the Auxiliary Units were referred to as "scallywags" and their activities as "scallywagging". Beginnings Gubbins used several officers who had served with the Independent Companies in Norway and others whom he had known there.
Units were localised on a county structure, as they would probably be fragmented and isolated from one another. They were distributed around the coast rather than being countrywide, with priority being given to the counties most at risk from enemy invasion, the two most vulnerable being Kent and Sussex in South East England. The two best known officers from the period are Captain Peter Fleming of the Grenadier Guards and Captain Mike Calvert of the Royal Engineers. Operational Patrols Operational Patrols consisted of between four and eight men, often farmers or landowners. They were usually recruited from the most able members of the Home Guard, possessed excellent local knowledge and were able to live off the land.
Gamekeepers and even poachers were particularly valued. They were always intended to fight in Home Guard uniform and from 1942 the men were badged to Home Guard battalions 201 (Scotland), 202 (northern England), or 203 (southern England). Around 3,500 men were trained on weekend courses at Coleshill House, near Highworth, Wiltshire, in the arts of guerrilla warfare including assassination, unarmed combat, demolition and sabotage. Each Patrol was a self-contained cell, expected to be self-sufficient and operationally autonomous in the case of invasion, generally operating within a 15-mile radius. They were provided with elaborately-concealed underground Operational Bases (OB), usually built by the Royal Engineers in a local woodland, with a camouflaged entrance and emergency escape tunnel.
It is thought that 400 to 500 such OBs were constructed. Some Patrols had an additional concealed Observation Post and/or underground ammunition store. Patrols were provided with a selection of the latest weapons including a silenced pistol or Sten gun and Fairbairn-Sykes "commando" knives, quantities of plastic explosive, incendiary devices, and food to last for two weeks. Members anticipated being shot if they were captured, and were expected to shoot themselves first rather than be taken alive. The mission of the units was to attack invading forces from behind their own lines while conventional forces fell back to prepared defences.
Aircraft, fuel dumps, railway lines, and depots were high on the list of targets, as would be the assassination of senior German officers and any local collaborators. Patrols secretly reconnoitred local country houses, which might be used by German officers, and prepared lists of suspected fifth columnists as early targets for killing. Although the Auxiliary Units would fight in Home Guard uniform, their operations would otherwise clearly be irregular combatants under the Geneva Conventions. They and their weapons would be concealed, they would not be under the control of the local Home Guard commander, and they would not be constrained by the 'rules of war' in combat.
General Home Guard units were instructed to fight on and not to surrender, but it was expected that nevertheless, once their ammunition was exhausted, they would have to give themselves up to capture. That was seen as creating an opportunity for a hidden Auxiliary Unit in the locality to kill as many Germans as possible just when they might be considering themselves as victors. Special Duty Sections and Signals Separate from the Auxiliary Units' Operational Patrols was the Special Duty Branch, which was originally recruited by SIS and carefully vetted and selected from the local civilian population. It acted as "eyes and ears" and would report back to military intelligence any information that it heard from 'careless talk' or from watching troop movements and supply routes.
It was supported by a signals network of hidden, short-range, wireless sets around the coast. The structure allowed no means to pass on such information to the Operational Patrols. It is unlikely that the wireless network would survive long after invasion and that it would not have been possible to link the isolated Operational Patrols into a national network that could act in concert on behalf of a British government in exile and its representatives still in the United Kingdom. Instead, SIS (MI6) created a separate resistance organisation (Section VII) with powerful wireless sets that was intended to act on a longer-term basis.
The Special Duties Sections were recruited largely from the civilian population, with around 4,000 members. They had been trained to identify vehicles, high-ranking officers and military units and were to gather intelligence and leave reports in dead letter drops. The reports would be collected by runners and taken to one of over 200 secret radio transmitters operated by trained civilian signals staff. The civilian personnel operated as 'Intelligence Gatherers' and operated the OUT Station radios. ATS subalterns or Royal Signals personnel operated the Special Duties IN-Stations and Zero Stations. Later history The Auxiliary Units were kept in being long after any immediate German threat had passed and were stood down only in November 1944.
Several Auxiliary Unit members later joined the Special Air Service. Many men saw action in the campaign in France in late 1944, notably in Operation Houndsworth and Operation Bulbasket. From 1942, the Operational Patrols of the Auxiliary Units tried to reinvent themselves as an antiraiding force. That was primarily a device to avoid them from being disbanded as the War Office had made a promise that the volunteers would not be returned to normal Home Guard duties. They therefore had to be kept in existence until the general stand-down of the Home Guard. Nonetheless, some units were deployed to the Isle of Wight prior to the D day landings in 1944 to help protect the Pluto fuel pipeline from being attacked by German commandos.
It was then suggested that the Auxiliary Units should be fully administered by the Home Guard, but that was not enacted before the final stand-down in November 1944. Cultural references An Auxiliary Unit arms cache features in the 1985 BBC TV series, Blott on the Landscape. British partisans feature in two UK films that imagine what would have happened if Germany had successfully invaded Britain: the 1966 film It Happened Here (which simply refers to 'partisans') and the 2011 film Resistance based on Owen Sheers' first novel, Resistance. The partisans in the latter are loosely based upon Auxiliary Units, albeit with considerable artistic licence.
The Auxiliary Units feature in the BBC programme Wartime Farm although there is some confusion between the roles of the Operational Patrols and the Special Duties Branch. The Auxiliary Units and Special Duties Branch feature heavily in Gordon Stevens' 1991 novel And All the King's Men (). The novel examines an alternate history following a successful German invasion of England. See also British military history of World War II British anti-invasion preparations of World War II British military history Special forces Stay-behind Rab Butler Axis victory in World War II, a list of Nazi Germany/Axis/World War II alternate history articles Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team References Further reading Stewart Angell.
The Secret Sussex Resistance. (Middleton Press) Roger Ford. Fire from the Forest (Orion, 2004), Donald Brown. Somerset versus Hitler (Countryside Books, 2001) External links Category:World War II resistance movements Category:Stay-behind organizations
Anthony Howard "Tony" Lockett (born 9 March 1966) is a former Australian rules football player. Nicknamed "Plugger", Lockett is the highest goalscorer in the history of the VFL/AFL with 1,360 goals in a career of 281 games, starting in 1983 with the St Kilda Football Club and ending in 2002 with the Sydney Swans. Lockett won the Brownlow Medal in 1987, becoming the first and only full forward to ever win the award. He is a four-time Coleman Medallist, kicked more than 100 goals in a season on six occasions (an AFL record he shares with Jason Dunstall of Hawthorn) and is a member of the Australian Football Hall of Fame.
In 1999, Lockett broke the all-time goals record when he kicked his 1300th goal, surpassing Gordon Coventry's record of 1299 which had stood for 62 years. Lockett's new record remains unbeaten. At 191 cm tall and weighing 118 kg, Lockett was a unique footballer. His aggression, strong hands, acceleration, high leap and accurate kicking made him a formidable player. Early life Tony Lockett was born in Ballarat, Victoria, to his father Howard (a country footballer who played over 500 games and a North Ballarat Football Club Hall of Famer and his mother Liz. He was educated at Ballarat Secondary College and Ballarat Grammar School.
Lockett began playing Australian Rules with the Under 12s team of his father's club, North Ballarat Football Club, in 1974. He played a total of 120 junior games with the club. He had played just five senior games as a 16-year-old in 1982 with North Ballarat before he was recruited by VFL club St Kilda and moved to Melbourne. Career VFL/AFL St Kilda career: 1983–1994 In Lockett's second year with the club, he kicked seven goals in the opening game against the Essendon Football Club and then went on to kick 70 more goals to win St Kilda's leading goal kicker award.
In 1987 he won the Brownlow Medal. His best season at St Kilda was in 1991, when he kicked 127 goals in 17 games, at an average of 7.47 goals per game, the second highest average ever achieved in VFL/AFL history (after Peter Hudson's 1972 and 1973 averages of eight after playing only one game each year). He was also the spearhead for St Kilda's first finals appearance since 1973. In 1992 he kicked the most goals that season with 132 goals. In a qualifying final against Geelong he kicked nine goals and five behinds, although the Saints were beaten by seven points.
He was described by dual Brownlow medallist Robert Harvey as the best player he had ever seen. Sydney Swans career: 1995–1999 2002 In 1995, Lockett transferred to the Sydney Swans, where he played for another six seasons. He was an instant success with the Swans, helping the team into the 1996 finals series and subsequently into the 1996 AFL Grand Final. With scores tied in the preliminary final game, Lockett kicked a point after the siren to give Sydney a one-point victory. Despite a groin injury he played in the grand final, which the Swans lost to North Melbourne. It was the only grand final appearance of Lockett's career.
Lockett's career-best goal-scoring performance came in Round 19, 1995, against Fitzroy at the Western Oval, when he scored 16 goals straight. Lockett became a cult figure in Sydney. He was a massive drawcard for the struggling Sydney Swans, who had previously found it difficult to attract large support in New South Wales's rugby league heartland. At the height of his popularity the song "There's only one Tony Lockett" was released (sung to the tune of "Guantanamera"), performed by James Freud. In 1996, Lockett was the subject of much hype in the clash between Geelong and Sydney in which Gary Ablett Sr. was playing at the other end of the ground.