Classified Government weapons and war exaggeration secrets: the problem
Hitler's Mein Kampf, 1925: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
"I remember very vividly, a few months after the famous pacifist resolution at the Oxford Union visiting Germany and having a talk with a prominent leader of the young Nazis. He was asking about this pacifist motion and I tried to explain it to him. There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said, 'The fact is that you English are soft'. Then I realized that the world enemies of peace might be the pacifists."
- Liberal MP Robert Bernays, House of Commons, 20 July, 1934.
"The better we know our enemies, the less hostile they appear. International competitions of any kind are in this sense educative; in them we can see potential enemies participating in the same activities as ourselves and thus providing a common identity." - Robin Clarke, The Science of War and Peace, Jonathan Cape, London, 1971, page 213.
Above: Britain’s Foreign Office pro-Nazis ordered the British football team, which included Stanley Matthews, to give the Nazi salute at Berlin’s Olympic Stadium on 14 May 1938 before beating Germany 6-3. The reason was British peaceful collaboration with the Nazis to prevent another World War. This fascist domination of sports did not begin two years earlier at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, because the 1914 founder of fascism, “Il Duce” Mussolini, had previously hosted the 1934 World Cup in Italy, dictating the referees and corrupting the matches. Prime Minister Chamberlain believed in 1938 that Britain and Germany were peacefully resolving their differences using football and diplomacy. Even today the base lie of appeasement and peacemaking by treaty and “jaw jaw not war war” propaganda is unabated, encouraging aggressors and misery.
Dr Zaius is alive and well, ensuring that consensus censors facts, as shown in this BBC propaganda programme, Horizon: Science Under Attack where groupthink pseudophysics is labelled “science” and the facts are dismissed because they have been censored out by “peer”-review pseudoscientific bigotry. Telegraph online Journalist James Delingpole, who exposed to the world the “hide the decline” climategate email of Dr Phil Jones is dismissed by Dr Zaius on the pretext that people must define science as the consensus of “peer”-reviewed literature. Great. So we can go on pretending that there is nothing to worry about, and using “peer”-review to prevent human progress. Ah, if only it were that easy to sweep the facts under the carpet or wallpaper over them. To read the 1960s background about Dr Zaius, see the wikipedia page linked here: “Zaius serves a dual role in Ape society, as Minister of Science in charge of advancing ape knowledge, and also as Chief Defender of the Faith. In the latter role, he has access to ancient scrolls and other information not given to the ape masses. [Dr Phil Jones and the FOIA/Freedom of Information Act "harrassment" controversy.] Zaius ... blames human nature for it all. Zaius seems to prefer an imperfect, ignorant ape culture that keeps humans in check, to the open, scientific, human-curious one ... The idea of an intelligent human ... threatening the balance of things frightens him deeply.”
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1993). (That report is available here, a site that also contains a very similar but less fashionable pseudoscientific groupthink delusion on eugenics.)
The error in the Club of Rome's groupthink approach is the lie that the common enemy is humanity. This lie is the dictatorial approach taken by paranoid fascists, both on the right wing and the left wing, such as Stalin and Hitler. (Remember that the birthplace of fascism was not Hitler's Germany, but Rome in October 1914, when the left-wing, ex-communist Mussolini joined the new Revolutionary Fascio for International Action after World War I broke out.) The common enemy of humanity is not humanity but is fanaticism, defined here by the immoral code: “the ends justify the means”. It is this fanaticism that is used to defend exaggerations and lies for political ends. Exaggeration and lying about weapons effects in the hope it will be justified by ending war is also fanaticism. Weapons effects exaggerations both motivated aggression in 1914, and prevented early action against Nazi aggression in the mid-1930s.
"... the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin."
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, 1992.
"A fascinating article by Mark Musser in American Thinker on one of the pioneers of apocalyptic global warming theory. Turns out – whoulda thunk? – that he was a eugenicist and a Nazi. ... the quest for Lebensraum [habitat/living space] did not die with Hitler in his bunker in 1945 ..."
- James Delingpole, Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis, Telegraph.
"After the war in the 1950's, Guenther Schwab's brand of environmentalism also played a fundamental role in the development of the green anti-nuclear movement in West Germany. The dropping of the atom bomb and the nuclear fallout of the Cold War helped to globalize the greens into an apocalyptic 'peace' movement with Guenther Schwab being one of its original spokesmen. The unprecedented destruction in Germany brought on by industrialized warfare never before seen in the history of the world only served to radicalize the German greens into an apocalyptic movement. Their hatred toward global capitalism became even more vitriolic precisely because the capitalists were now in charge of a dangerous nuclear arsenal that threatened the entire planet." - Mark Musser, "The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory", American Thinker, February 15, 2011.
Dr J. Goebbels’ 27 March 1942 Diary entry: “No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too, the Fuehrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution ...” (Source: Richard J. Evans, Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial, 2002.)
“We cannot go on trying to separate the responsible from the irresponsible, punish the guilty ... We are not capable of judging men. However, the community must be protected against troublesome and dangerous elements. How can this be done? Certainly not by building larger and more comfortable prisons, just as real health will not be promoted by larger and more scientific hospitals. Criminality and insanity can be prevented only by a better knowledge of man, by eugenics... Those who have ... misled the public in important matters [Jews in Nazi propaganda], should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gases.”
- bestseller by Alexis Carrel, 1912 medical Nobel Prize winning eugenicist and Nazi eugenics praiser and appeaser, Man the Unknown, 1935 and 1939 (died awaiting trial for collaboration).
Above: 1948 Pelican book number A181. This is medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel's eugenics gas chamber best-seller, Man the Unknown, but Pelican/Penguin in 1948 lavishly praised the book in its blurb and introduction, while editing out the Nazi praise by Carrel in his preface to the German 1936 edition and also in his sick preface to the 1939 American edition! However, the eugenics pseudoscience and other pseudoscience remained (click here for PDF of key pages, since it is out of 50 year copyright). Notice that the publisher (Pelican/Penguin books), fails to mention Carrel's Nazi gas chamber eugenics support and the fact he was a "regent" to the collaborationist Vichy regime in 1941, which supported the Nazi suppression of the Resistance in occupied France, using his connections to the Pétain cabinet (specifically, French industrial physicians André Gros and Jacques Ménétrier). Because of such cover-ups, as late as 1984, some ignorant or groupthink-retarded American physicians continued praising this gas chamber eugenicist as a big genius rather than a Nazi, a denial done simply by omitting any mention of the facts concerning his contribution to the holocaust, recommending gas chamber eugenics! See here and the 1939 edition of Carrel (linked here) for more details. The crime of Nobel wasn't just blowing up members of his family or selling explosives to both sides in the Crimean War, but was his prize to quacks, enabling them to ride roughshod over genuine science by pseudoscientific appeals to authority through the groupthink-retarded media, pretending big lies to be science!
His 1935 preface on page ix glorifies himself with false modesty as a scientist not a philosopher, adding that the books’ aim is to “describe the known and to separate it clearly from the plausible”, adding innocently on page xiv that the book “is offered to all as a simple account of facts revealed about human beings by scientific observation.” After a badly researched account of medicine and science, he simply lies on page 91 that feminists are simply ignorant of biology, women should be inferior to men: “Ignorance of these fundamental facts has led promoters of feminism to believe that both sexes should have the same education, the same powers, and the same responsibilities.” On page 121 he claims telepathy pseudoscience is science, page 205 claims that Mussolini built up a “great nation” (so Penguin omitted Carrel’s praise for Hitler, but forgot to edit out his praise for Mussolini!), page 249 attacks “democratic equality ... The democratic creed ... does not apply to the concrete fact which the individual is. ... human beings are equal. But individuals are not. ... The feeble-minded and the man of genius should not be equal before the law.”
Umm, let’s see now, is the gas-chamber-eugenics-Nazi-supporting-Nobel-Laureate Alexis Carrel “feeble-minded” or is he a “man of genius”? Depends whether you ask a Nazi. Words like “genius” or “feeble-minded” are subjective opinions, and not defined objective facts. Carrel found a way to reattach severed arteries, while Hitler built the first motorway and ended unemployment; such facts are totally irrelevant to the question of whether these people perverted science with lying eugenics, leading to the holocaust! Page 269 states that schools are immoral for breeding herds, page 271 states that cities are “inhuman”, then page 273 evilly states: “Modern nations will save themselves by developing the strong, not by protecting the weak.”
On page 274, Carrel states: “Eugenics is indispensable for the perpetuation of the strong. A great race must propagate its best elements.” Problem: what is “best”? The environment is always changing and the problems are always changing. So how on earth can anybody know today ahead of time, even in principle, what is going to be “best” for the rest of eternity? It’s complete rubbish, composed of ignorant assertions that contradict the facts of evolution that requires the diversity in order to allow natural selection. If you choose to propagate an “element” that seems to be doing well today, you may find it lacks some vital gene necessary for protection against a new disease that appears tomorrow! In 1970, an analogous narrow-genetic-base plant eugenics failure was demonstrated in the USA: 70-90% of corn hybrids carried the T gene for male sterility, and these were highly vulnerable to the corn leaf blight fungus. Page 281 states: “children must be conditioned.” Page 290 asserts with no reason offered whatsoever:
“We cannot go on trying to separate the responsible from the irresponsible, punish the guilty, spare those who, although having committed a crime, are thought to be morally innocent. We are not capable of judging men. However, the community must be protected against troublesome and dangerous elements. How can this be done? Certainly not by building larger and more comfortable prisons, just as real health will not be promoted by larger and more scientific hospitals.”
Page 291 offers a final solution:
“Those who have ... misled the public in important matters [to the Nazis this meant the Jews, to decent people it means Carrel], should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gases.”
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
... I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. ... I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! ...
- Dr Phil Jones to Dr Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004
Above: New Zealand-born David Low's illustration of Hitler's "crisis" propaganda tactic, Evening Standard, 9 September 1938. Hitler only had a 6-weeks munitions supply for short wars of invasion. He wasn't planning World War II, but hoped Britain and America would go on appeasing and staying neutral. Hitler's strategy was simple. Every country on earth has some Germans. All he had to do was to make up a "crisis" scare propaganda story about the abuse of the German minority group in each country, and use it as an excuse to invade one country after another (peacefully if possible, his strategy was cheap racial extermination by gas chambers, not by more expensive bullets and bombs). Weapons and war effects were exaggerated and exploited by Dr Goebbels' propaganda to encourage enemies to cave in peacefully, surrendering or appeasing. Similar strategies may be used in future efforts to spread other ideologies around the world. The BBC regularly broadcast "pacifist" weapons effects exaggerating scare tactics from the 1920s onwards to the Cold War, in the ill-informed belief that disarmament propaganda guaranteed happiness, universal peace and love. When Hitler saw these Low cartoons, he blew his top and tried his best to coerce the British government into censoring them, as explained in a 6 December 2002 speech by the Australian Government Treasurer, Peter Costello:
Low's regular depictions of the Fuhrer caused enormous diplomatic problems for the British Government, but they were to prove remarkably prophetic. ... In 1933 the Nazis banned the Evening Standard and all newspapers carrying Low's work because of a cartoon he had drawn depicting Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations. In 1936 during the Berlin Olympic Games Low received his first request to tone down his depiction of Hitler in the interests of "good relations between all countries". In 1937 the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax visited Germany and met with the Propaganda Minister Goebbels, who told him that Hitler was very sensitive to criticism in the British press, and he singled out Low for attention. Lord Halifax contacted the manager of the Evening Standard to see if Low could be toned down. He said:
"You cannot imagine the frenzy that these cartoons cause. As soon as a copy of the Evening Standard arrives, it is pounced on for Low's cartoon, and if it is of Hitler, as it generally is, telephones buzz, tempers rise, fevers mount, and the whole governmental system of Germany is in uproar. It has hardly subsided before the next one arrives. We in England can't understand the violence of the reaction."
... It wasn't only Hitler complaining about Low. In 1938 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain singled out Low while appealing to newspapers to temper their critical commentary of Germany. Chamberlain said:
"Such criticism might do a great deal to embitter relations when we on our side are trying to improve them. German Nazis have been particularly annoyed by criticisms in the British press, and especially by cartoons. The bitter cartoons of Low of the Evening Standard have been a frequent source of complaint."
For background info on how H2O cloud cover feedback cancelling CO2 variations on temperature has been faked in IPCC NASA "peer"-review bigotry, see http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy and http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi.pdf:
(1) increased cloud cover doesn't warm the earth. True, cloud cover prevents rapid cooling at night. But it also reduces the sunlight energy received in the day, which is the source of the heat emitted during the night. Increase cloud cover, and the overall effect is a cooling of air at low altitudes.
(2) rainfall doesn't carry latent heat down to be released at sea level. The latent heat of evaporation is released in rain as soon as the droplets condense from vapour, at high altitudes in clouds. Air drag rapidly cools the drops as they fall, so the heat is left at high altitudes in clouds, and the only energy you get when the raindrops land is the kinetic energy (from their trivial gravitational potential energy).
Obfuscation of the fact that hot moist air rises and condenses to form clouds from oceans that cover 70% of the earth (unlike any greenhouse) caused this whole mess. IPCC models falsely assume that H2O vapour doesn't rise and condense into clouds high above the ground: they assume hot air doesn't rise! That's why they get the vital (false) conclusion that H2O vapour doubles (amplifies) projected temperature rises from CO2, instead of cancelling them out! Their models are plain wrong.
Above: Dr Ferenc Mikolczi, working for a NASA contractor, was censored out using physics-ignorant, science-abusing, groupthink "peer"-review quackery, and resigned in protest in 2006 for discovering the heresy that CO2 increases are producing a negative-feedback on H2O evaporation, not the positive-feedback that NASA climate models assumptions dictate and require for disaster forecasts. ("Peer"-review is fine where it is scientific; but in these cases it is pseudoscientific "peer"-review of the political sort that kept "eugenics" looking respectable in "peer"-reviewed journals whose editors were bribed or seduced by Nazi propaganda.) Dr Miklos Zagoni explained Dr Mikolczi's data in his report linked here, which states on page 4:
"Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
"Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –
constant, not increasing;
equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
"During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
"Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all."
Just as Prime Minister Chamberlain and the BBC civil defence deniers (more about that later in this post) tried to censor out critics of Nazi eugenics "science" in the 1930s with lying claims that they were a danger to democracy and lies that Britain would be destroyed by Nazis if it tried to stop them, the Telegraph investigative journalist James Delingpole is coming under lying "fire" from Dr Zaius for exposing the "hide the decline" and "Nature trick" email propaganda from Dr Phil Jones and other groupthink deniers of natural climate change facts. See for instance his blog posts linked here, here, here, here, and here for my detailed examination of the science of natural global change and the homeostasis via slightly increased cloud cover when CO2 levels are increased:
Above: Dr Goebbels was the first spin doctor, a Nazi propaganda minister who used eugenics lies to supposedly "justify" racism. It's the old trick of scare-mongering, explained in Hitler's Mein Kampf (called the "big lie"). Hitler explains that the public falls for a big lie (not a small one) because they can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make it up. Hence, we have President Paul Nurse in the video above claiming that nobody knows why tree-ring temperature data fails to correlate to thermometer temperatures after 1960. Actually, if you look at stunted tree growth on the northern slopes of hills or in parched areas, you get a clue. Tree-ring growth rates only correlate to air temperature is air temperature is the only variable, such as in a controlled lab test. In the real world, tree-ring growth depends on sunlight (which depends on cloud cover, atmospheric smog, particulate pollution, etc.), rainfall, exposure to severe prevailing winds, etc. Thus, other factors can interfere with the simplistic correlation of air temperature to tree-ring data. Satellite observations can't observe surface temperatures through cloud cover, which absorbs infrared as well as visible light.
Weather stations are affected by local city or industrial hot air (which is not correlated to global temperature rises due to CO2), so we don't really have reliable data on global temperature changes. We do know that sea levels have risen at a mean rate of 0.20 cm/year over the past century, compared to the mean rate of rise of 0.67 cm/year over the past 18,000 years due to the thawing of the last ice age during the holocene. Rates of rise during parts of the holocene were much greater than 0.67 cm/year, making the present rate of rise trivial. However, politically motivated propagandarists don't want to know the facts, just as the eugenics propagandarists of the 1930s didn't. British politics has always been riddled with ill-informed bigwig science dictators and propagandarists who don't understand science (confusing it for the dictatorial power politics of an elite few greasy pole-climbers), and robustly avoid debate and criticism in science. They want "science" a consensus, and ignore the fact that Newton's laws of motion and Darwin's evolution were not mainstream groupthink consensus, but were against ingrained belief systems (Aristotle and Genesis). Dr Helene Guldberg (an Open University lecturer) in a 2001 Spiked Science article calls this "Eco-evangelism":
"Jeremy Webb, editor of the New Scientist, started by emphasising that human beings have 'as much destructive potential' as that which brought about former mass extinctions - where up to 90 percent of species were wiped out. Just look at BSE (What? How many bovine species have gone extinct as a result of BSE?), HIV (Again, what does this tell us about the human destructive potential?) and global warming (But, Jeremy, the history of the planet has been one of far greater temperature fluctuations than those predicted for the coming century). ...
"When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?'
There are risks from taking the wrong actions: Chamberlain (on the basis of groupthink lies and delusions we will examine below) believed the only important risk from the Nazis was in starting preventative war, when in fact appeasement made matters worse by allowing unopposed evil. But first, consider a more recent example:
Above: Sir Gus O'Donnell, British Cabinet Secretary (Knighted in 2005 during the Labour Government), refused to release records of the secret Iraq invasion talks between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, it is revealed today.
This is of interest because it is a recent example of the exaggeration of enemy weapons and war threats for political purposes, although Saddam was really an evil dictator whose regime had used nerve gas against children in 1988. However, the danger of any exaggerations is in causing propaganda disbelief, "crying wolf" or "Vietnam fatigue", so the public debt and apathy will be so high that we simply will not be able to afford (in terms of money and morale) the costs of coming up with a tailored (credible) deterrent that will negate the newly emerging dangers. This was demonstrated after the "domino theory" justification for Vietnam was disbelieved in the West, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading the Soviet Union to take advantage of the fatigue and push ahead in invading Afghanistan in 1979, instigating dictatorship, not democracy! We need to try to be more democratic and open about the science facts and the resulting policy options. Insurgents including the Soviet Union during the Cold War, used classic revolutionary harrassment tactics:
"The enemy advances, we retreat.
"The enemy camps, we harass.
"The enemy tires, we attack.
"The enemy retreats, we pursue."
- Mao Tse-Tung (1893-1976)
"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
"If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
"If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
- Sun Tzu, Art of War, Chapter 3, c. 300 B.C.
As we explained with all of the evidence in a previous post, secret Government exaggerations of weapons effects and a downplaying of effective countermeasures have traditionally been the staple behind-the-scenes mechanism for both World Wars and many smaller ones. (Essentially every war in history has broken out via the mechanism due to weapons and thus war effects exaggerations of some sort, by one or both sides. Of course, this has traditionally been covered up by pacifist lies and military excuses, blaming solely people or solely weapons for starting wars, as a useful excuse or disarmament-supporting lie.)
The "dodgy dossier": Prime Minister Tony Blair's publication of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, 24 September 2002. (Download PDF at BBC website link, here.)
The lie in this report which concerns us is a lie through omission: Prime Minister Blair listed possible threats (which turned out to be exaggerations), but failed to discuss or even mention the civil defence countermeasures that people can take against those threats.
Up to a 100,000 people died in the war which was justified by Blair to remove Saddam. It would have been difficult for Saddam to produce so many casualties with the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology he was claimed to have or be developing, unless the exaggerating Cold War Hiroshima data are used in the calculation! Tolerating an attack by weapons of mass destruction could be much cheaper both in money and lives, given good civil defence training of the public. The cost of civil defence is just that of informing people and teaching good peacetime skills like first-aid, basic light rescue (also of importance during natural events like chemical industry explosions, fuel explosions, and earthquakes, where the full-time fire brigade might not arrive in time to save people from a building which is on fire), mass-feeding, decontamination and radiation monitoring (both of value also for major peacetime incidents like large nuclear accidents).
Prime Minister Blair gives no analysis of the civil defence option, which would have been of great importance if his dossier was accurate and the invasion had led to Iraqi WMD missiles being launched at civilian population centres!
The Iraq war was indeed well justified because Saddam had proved to be an evil threat several times in the past by using nerve gas against defenseless civilians in 1988, by invading Kuwait, and so on. That Saddam was a bad guy and a focus for evil in the world isn't at issue. What is at issue are the lying secret-file-based exaggerations used to "justify" the Iraq war. Such false justifications for war constitute a threat to National Security, by undermining the public faith in any future Government warnings of threats! Crying wolf is a danger to National Security because the Government will have to use different, much harder, tactics in the future to make a case for war.
If any Americans happen to read this, they will need to know that British Government democracy works very differently to American politics, with far more power given by default to unelected permanent Civil Servants. Elected British politicians have limited access to Government papers, for example. They cannot browse secret research or secret policy reports from the previous Government if that Government was of a rival Political Party, which are held by the Civil Service and only shown to politicians if there is a specific justified reason for doing so. In addition, the ongoing Civil Service work is not directly controlled by elected politicians, who have to utilize the existing permanently appointed Civil Service staff. The politicians are fed a stream of papers to read and decisions to make, but they don't automatically have the right to bypass the Civil Service methods. There are limits to their power.
(This is a "fair play rule", to prevent the new Government from immediately publishing secret files on the mistakes and follies of the previous Government, which goes a long way towards explaining why all British Governments can "afford to be" careless with taxpayers money, security, etc. Files are withheld for at least 30 years, and longer if they are particularly embarrassing. Politicians are usually buried or in financially secure retirement long before declassification is a threat.)
The Cabinet Secretary has a salary of £235,000, so he is financially much better renumerated than the Prime Minister whose salary is £142,500. This should give you an idea of the relative importance of the Cabinet Secretary (although of course his salary is chicken-feed when compared to the city investment bankers who nearly bankrupt the country).
Ban on revealing Tony Blair's secret files angers Iraq inquiry chief
Joe Murphy, Political Editor, LONDON EVENING STANDARD
18 Jan 2011
A cover-up row erupted when the official Iraq inquiry complained it had been banned from revealing records of the secret invasion talks between Tony Blair and George Bush.
In a bombshell statement, inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot revealed that "critical" evidence was being withheld from the public on the orders of Britain's top civil servant.
The hidden papers include minutes of discussions and private memos sent by the former prime minister to the US president who led the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. "The inquiry is disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary was not willing to accede to its request," said Sir John, adding: "This means that in a narrow but important area the inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions."
His statement was made at the start of the latest round of public hearings in an inquiry set up by Gordon Brown to establish the truth about the war, its causes and its aftermath.
Sir John indicated that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, who is Britain's most senior civil servant, had decided the official records of Mr Blair's words to President Bush could not be published or quoted from.
He said: "There is one area where, I am sorry to say, it has not been possible to reach agreement with the government.
"The papers we hold include the notes which Prime Minister Blair sent to President Bush and the records of their discussions.
"The inquiry recognises the privileged nature of those exchanges but, exceptionally, we sought disclosure of key extracts which illuminate prime minister Blair's positions at critical points. The Cabinet Office did not agree this disclosure."
He added: "On 10 December last year, in accordance with the protocol, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to review that decision. I also made it clear that, if we could not reach agreement, I would publish the correspondence between us. I am doing so today."
Sir John made no suggestion that current ministers were involved in the decision to block publication.
Experts on Iraq have long been convinced that Mr Blair made private pledges to president Bush that were never admitted by his government.
On Friday, Mr Blair will give evidence for the second time in public to answer questions raised by the evidence from other key figures.
The question of whether Mr Blair made secret promises to the US president is at the heart of the secret papers, correspondence revealed by the inquiry made clear.
In a letter to Sir Gus, Sir John said "the question of when and how the prime minister made commitments to the US... is central to its considerations".
Presumably the current Prime Minister (Cameron) would have to be made aware of the secret 2003 exchanges between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, so this is unlikely to be due to Party Politics. However, I'm blogging about this because there are many secret matters that the Government's unelected (permanent) Civil Service is aware of, which the elected politicians are not automatically made aware of.
We're thinking about information on the efficiency of civil defense in various types of war or terrorist caused disaster or intimidating threat. Since the 1977 publication of the 3rd edition of Glasstone and Dolan's Effects of Nuclear Weapons, the situation has undergone a substantial transformation. On the one hand, the Cold War research reports which were classified or unclassified (legally) but designated "limited" or of "official use only" in distribution to government agencies, are now gradually being released. On the other hand, more recent research is not being widely published, but is being limited in distribution.
Please click on book pages for a full-screen high-quality GIF image (if you prefer PDF format, a more complete, 27 pages long, 16.5 MB PDF summary is linked here):
To spell out the danger once again (see also the earlier posts linked here, here, here, and here, for a start), after World War I the British secret cabinet committee on defence started producing and accepting exaggerated estimates of enemy bombing capabilities (while Germany was still unarmed, they assumed the enemy would be France!). The exaggerations were threefold. They exaggerated the rate of bombing, the total amount of bombing, and the effects of every ton of bombs. Basically, the 1930s predicted bombing effects from conventional and chemical warfare due to the Nazis were on the scale of nuclear war. Chamberlain was pressurized by the pacifists and the public for peace with Hitler, while the British military exaggerated Nazi bombing capabilities to milk the situation for a crash lying rearmament fighter plane programme, the development of radar, etc. All of this was a complete lie, because the rate of Nazi armament exceeded that of Britain:
Every single second that Chamberlain "gained" by signing peace treaties with Hitler, the Nazis were churning out more bullets and explosives than Britain was, and he knew it, so the relative situation for war was constantly deteriorating, not improving as British rearmament progressed. The British military knew it. The probability of winning a war was slipping lower every second. Chamberlain simply seized on lying exaggerations of weapons and war effects in order to broker completely worthless peace deals with Hitler, instead of going against public opinion and starting a "preventative war". He could not have gained public support for any action against the Nazis without opposing popular media exaggerations of Nazi bombing effects, by giving the public credible data on the efficiency of civil defence. Even now, ignorant historians write that Chamberlain was "buying time" for British rearmament. They can't grasp the very simple fact that if you are arming slower than the enemy, you're losing time, not buying it.
Without American military lend-lease and military support, Britain would have eventually been invaded by the Nazis, sooner or later, regardless of its fighter aircraft, Engima code breaking computers and radar stations. The clear lesson is that the country should have been better prepared with civil defence to take a limited war at a much earlier opportunity, in order to prevent enemy weapons proliferation getting so out of hand that a World War became necessary. O'Brien's 1955 official history of British civil defence relates an episode from the 1920s when a Government committee failed to answer false claims from a pacifist in a BBC broadcast, lying that it is impossible or unfeasible to protect the public from the effects of a weapon of mass destruction. The committee was appalled and could have either responded or even forced the BBC to prevent the broadcast of lying propaganda, but it failed (as committees inevitably do) to reach consensus on taking any action, and did nothing. This set a precedent, and the the media was free to publish lying propaganda, exaggerating weapons effects and downplaying countermeasures. These lies contributed to the 1933 Oxford Union pacifist resolution that so encouraged the Nazis, and then general public belief in the impossibility of civil defence. Result: Chamberlain bought Hitler's signature on a worthless peace treaty, effectively at the high price of the lives of six million Jews. What puzzles me is why these facts are not admitted truthfully.
The history of these exaggerations forms the secret early history of British civil defence prior to World War II, declassified and published by official historian Terrence H. O'Brien in his 1955 United Kingdom Civil Series, History of the Second World War, Civil Defence (PDF download linked here, since it is over 50 years old and out of Government copyright). It appears that naive historians never read this volume for understanding the outbreak of World War II. They lack the basic arithmetic to grasp weapons effects exaggerations and their effect on making civil defence seem impractical, hence the appeasement of Hitler by Prime Minister Chamberlain. Other historians seem to assume - presumably from the title - that O'Brien is just a history of Blitz bombs, rather than the weapons effects exaggerations and civil defence ignorance that led the public to support the appeasement of Nazi racists and defer a preventative war until world war was needed!
O’Brien states on page 4 why the history of secrecy over civil defence attack scale exaggerations prior to WWII is important for civil defence planning in the nuclear age, because planning for WWII exaggerated by scaling up surprise attack bombing data from WWI:
“The quantitative ‘progress’ which experts measure to estimate the scale of an attack does not, it cannot be too strongly insisted, tell the whole story. The point is of importance for students of the subject in an era in which marked ‘progress’ has been made in the technique of air warfare by the invention of the atomic bomb. This invention has given fresh currency to the view that ‘nowadays every war is different from the one before’ – which, if it were valid, would abolish any need to learn the lessons of past experience.”
“Top Secret” classified British Government civil defence report CD/SA16, The Number of Atomic Bombs Equivalent to the Last War Air Attacks on Great Britain and Germany (U.K. National Archives document HO 225/16) proved that there was little difference between conventional and nuclear warfare since 330 nuclear weapons would be required to duplicate the destruction from the 1.3 megatons of conventional bombs dropped on Germany. Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, apparently blocked a newspaper story about this long before the Iraq war. He is a member of Sir John Chilcot’s current United Kingdom Iraq War inquiry, and was a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. I sent a photocopy of declassified CD/SA16 to Bill Massey of the Sunday Express, who had previously interviewed the Government’s former Chief Science Adviser, Solly Zuckerman. The editor rejected the news that the team of British bombing experts who then surveyed the effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, had written this secret report showing that hundreds of nuclear weapons would be required to duplicate WWII bombing experience!
Bill told me what seems to be the reason: he had asked Freedman for a comment about it, and while expressing mild interest, Freedman had dismissed CD/SA16 with an irrelevant comment about H-bomb effects, ignoring the alleged Iraq low-yield nuclear weapons threat! I had explained the context of Hiroshima:
“The Surprise Attack. The element of surprise, coupled with the slight use of shelters, played a major role at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The population had become inured to air-raid warnings ... The mass of the population was in the open or in light wooden buildings ... At Hiroshima three planes appeared at 8:09. ... thousands of fires were burning in charcoal braziers. This contributed greatly to the conflagration ... At Nagasaki, there were only about 400 people in the tunnel shelters, which had a capacity of 70,000.”
– Ashley Oughterson (Clinical professor of Surgery) and Shields Warren (Professor of Pathology), Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Japan, McGraw-Hill, 1956.
(To be 100% fair to these people, politically incorrect news on nuclear weapons effects and civil defence is unwelcome generally in the British media, science media, journals, and book publishing industry, both popular and academic. The article submitted to Bill was the resume of my unpublished book Nuclear Weapons Effects Theory, which was also rejected by New Scientist while the book manuscript with technical equations omitted and just text plus graphs was rejected by Janice Brent, Assistant Editor at Penguin Books in London, and other publishers, including Dr Rufus Neal - Professor Steven Weinberg's QFT claptrap physical sciences pal at CUP - as well as Donald Degenhardt at OUP. Rufus Neal at CUP is credited on page xii of the 2003 revised edition New Quantum Universe by Hey and Walters promoting 1st quantization physics obfuscation pseudoscience; as the previous post explains, the 1987 edition falsely claimed that a soldier was vaporized over two miles from ground zero in Nagasaki! However, any mention to censorship just shows me up in a very bad light, just as "critics" of Christianity sneer that "Jesus was crucified therefore he must have been wrong". So please forget this paragraph exists, and that someone tried to publish the case for civil defence against nuclear state terrorism intimidation long ago. Rufus was however kind enough to post me back my book manuscript, having first written in pencil beside my issue with E = mc2 the word "Really?" One simple problem with E = mc2 is that if you give me a million dollars for the purchase of 9 x 1016 Joules of energy and then I push 1 kilogram of manure in your face, you just MIGHT politely dispute that E = mc2 says that mass and energy are "equal" or "equivalent"! Thus, Poincare's or Einstein's own "big lie"! There can be differences between reality and mathematical equations representing it! Then at a more subtle level, you have the mathematical issue that Dirac's relativistic spinor hamiltonian in QFT replaces E = mc2 with E = +/-mc2. Then you have the issue of whether mass is itself the "charge" for a quantum gravity gauge theory, which is conferred upon bosons by gauge group mixing as occurs when U(1) hypercharge and SU(2) isospin charge mixes in the Standard Model for broken as well as unified energies to yield bosons that mediate electromagnetism and weak interactions predicting all particle masses, or whether mass arises as Weinberg believes through a supersymmetric Higgs field as in the current version of the Standard Model which fails to predict all particle masses.)
Above: Sir Laurence Freedman is not the only member of the current Iraq War Inquiry to have political controversies behind him. Journalist Chapman Pincher's sad book on the British manipulation and secrecy behind the greasy pole climbers of our supposedly "democratic" politics (which in fact is totally unrelated to real democracy, which began in Ancient Greece as a daily referendum of the citizens on individual policy issues, not a choice between two cloned scientific fact-hating dictatorship consensus parties, merely twice a decade), Inside Story: A Documentary of the Pursuit of Power (Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1978) relates an incident concerning Sir Martin Gilbert (Churchill's biographer). Pincher as assistant editor of the Daily Express in 1974 had been forbidden by his newspaper proprietor from publishing allegations about Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who had recently given a peerage to Marcia Falkender, his political secretary, who seemed to have Prime Minister Wilson well under her thumb for some still "unexplained" reason (as recently as 2007 Marcia won £75,000 libel damages from the BBC for defamation, so historians must still tread very carefully or simply ignore the entire episode).
"[In May 1974] I was invited with my wife to lunch at a country house in Hampshire. It was a pleasant occasion because there were several people there I knew well ... After lunch some of us ... retired to the music-room where one of the party set the ball of conversation rolling by asking me about Marcia's peerage which had recently been announced. I have found that at almost any intimate gathering the conversation soon gets around to gossip about Wilson and Marcia, and the rest of the party, with the exception of the gentleman in jeans, stimulated me with questions to tell all I knew. ... I spoke of the allegations concerning Marcia's security clearance and how these might become public through a court action being brought [against the Civil Service Department] by a certain Mrs Marjorie Halls, the widow of Michael Halls, Wilson's former principal private secretary in Number 10. In this connection I mentioned that Marcia's children [fathered by a leading political journalist] would also be mentioned if the case came to court because Mrs Halls was claiming that the efforts involved in concealing them and other matters concerned with them had contributed to her husband's early death from a heart attack. I mentioned that Mrs Halls was prepared to give evidence that on one occasion Marcia had telephoned her and threatened to cause Wilson's downfall ... the only objector being the man in jeans [Sir Martin Gilbert] who remarked that a smear campaign against anybody could never be justified. I made the point that, in my view, a smear campaign was based on falsehoods and inaccurate innuendo. ... I did not see how a person could be 'smeared' by the truth. Damaged yes, but not 'smeared'. ... My suspicion was confirmed a little later by a second letter from Gilbert. It told me that he had sent copies of his account of my private conversation to Heath and ... to Wilson. The upshot of it was that Heath denied any knowledge of the campaign to discredit Wilson and his associates."
- Chapman Pincher, Inside Story: A Documentary of the Pursuit of Power, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1978, pp. 43-44.
Note that Sir Martin Gilbert was quite correct to leak journalist Chapman Pincher's secrets to the Prime Minister, for Pincher was leaking Wilson's secrets from moles in the Labour Government and Civil Service all the time. Unfortunately, Gilbert's letter was probably the last straw for Wilson, turning him completely paranoid about secret conspiracy plots. On pages 135-6, Pincher writes that Wilson's civil war or revolution:
"fear had originally been stimulated in 1968 by news of a dinner organized by Cecil King, former chief of the Daily Mirror, who had turned against him. The main guests were Mountbatten and [Dr Solly] Zuckerman, then Wilson's chief scientific adviser, and they found themselves discussing the feasibility of replacing the Wilson government with an emergency 'business administration'. Zuckerman has told me of his reaction to this nonsense. He walked out and reported the conversation to Wilson. ... as something of a joke, Mountbatten mentioned it to the Queen Mother, who wagged her finger at him sternly, saying 'Have nothing to do with it, Dickie!'"
O’Brien’s 1955 official British Government history, Civil Defence, continued on page 9 that the worst German bombing of Britain in World War I occurred on 13 June 1917 when 14 Gotha aircraft dropped 118 bombs on the City and East End of London, killing 162 and injuring 426. However, O’Brien explains that this data was known to be irrelevant to “duck and cover” because it was only in July 1917 that the Government started giving out “duck and cover” advice to the public! Altogether, O’Brien records, 300 tons of bombs were dropped on Britain in WWI, killing 1,413 and injuring 4,820. These data were used wrongly for casualty predictions in the 1930s, exaggerating the predicted scale of casualties and ignoring civil defence countermeasures, duping politicians into taking the wrong policies with the Nazis. O’Brien explains on page 12 that the error stemmed from a report commissioned in November 1921 from principal Service “experts”, by the Committee of Imperial Defence (which was created in 1904). The report not only exaggerated casualty rates per ton of bombs, but also the weight of attack and the enemy strategy: “It was to be anticipated that an enemy would put forth his maximum strength at the outset.”
This continues to be assumed in the nuclear age. On page 14, O’Brien explains that Sir John Anderson’s committee on air raid precautions (ARP) met for the first time in secret on 15 May 1924. On page 15, O’Brien points out that the average of 16 casualties per ton of bombs during WWI was ignored in favour of data from the worst attacks (two daylight attacks on London in the summer of 1917), to maximise predicted casualties, assumed to be 50 per ton of bombs. On page 31, O’Brien explains the major error made by Anderson’s committee in failing to do anything about a deceptive BBC broadcast by Professor Noel Baker, who exaggerated weapons effects and downplayed countermeasures to hype disarmament lies: “all gas experts are agreed that it would be impossible to devise means to protect the civil population from this form of attack.” (Forty years later, Baker continued with this lie, merely substituting the word “nuclear” for “gas”, as discussed in earlier blog posts.)
O’Brien explains (page 31) that although the Government experts “emphatically disputed the accuracy both of the picture and of this general statement”, and “discussed whether to draw the BBC’s attention to this talk”, they chickened out in case it would set a precedent for them having to do the work of checking BBC weapons effects claims for accuracy! O’Brien adds on page 33 that the Government in the 1930s deferred any public education on civil defence under the “ten-year-rule”, which stated arbitrarily that a war was always to be assumed to be 10 years in the future: “It acted, it is hardly necessary to state, as a powerful curb on defence preparations of all kinds and on provision of public funds for defence.”
O’Brien explains on page 81 how this secrecy over civil defence caused appeasement via the mechanism of permitting Baker-type public scientific ridicule and opposition to the scientific basis behind civil defence plans, when they were eventually published in a silly-sounding presentation (without any secret evidence to back up silly-sounding advice): “workers at Cambridge University, who described themselves as the ‘Cambridge Scientists’ Anti-War Group’ and their function as that of acting as ‘a technical and advisory body to national and international peace movements’, published a book attacking the Government’s A.R.P. [civil defence] plans. ... sections of the Press began a critical campaign, and questions were put to officials trying to build up A.R.P. services over the country. The Government’s reply was that the experiments were academic (in the sense of removed from reality), and based on fallacious assumptions about the conditions likely to be met in actual warfare.” O’Brien says that the Government refused to release its experimental data proving civil defence.
“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
- British Prime Minister Chamberlain, radio broadcast on 27 September 1938.
However, while refusing to reveal the secret evidence for the credibility of civil defence, the Government before the Munich crisis increased its secret estimates of the scale of Nazi bombing. On page 96, O’Brien states that the “Air Staff has raised their estimate of the weight of bombs which an enemy (now Germany) might drop on Britain during the first stages of an attack from 150 tons per diem [per day] to no less than 600 tons. ... casualties of the order of 200,000 a week, of which 66,000 would be killed,” with a special delivery in the first 24 hours of 3,500 tons of bombs. Hence they were predicting about a million casualties a month, making the effects of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki look trivial by comparison.
O’Brien explains the reality on page 416: on 16-17 April 1941, the Nazis used 450 aircraft to drop 596 tons of bombs (446 tons of high explosive and 150 tons of incendiaries), killing 1,180 and injuring 2,230. Thus, the actual result was 2 people killed and 3.7 injured per ton of bombs dropped. On page 505, O’Brien states that these high explosive bombs were mainly 50 or 250 kg. Declassified 1950s U.K. Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch reports use 175 kg for the average WWII bomb size, when comparing WWII bombing effects to nuclear weapons effects. Pages 677 and 680 state that 60,595 people were killed in Britain by 71,270 tons of WWII bombs, i.e. an average of 0.85 deaths per ton of bombs dropped on Britain. O’Brien on pages 690-1 shows that the British full-time plus part-time civil defence, police, fire and ambulance staff peaked at 1.9 million in 1944, and the whole cost of civil defence in Britain during WWII was £1,027 million.
On page 527, O’Brien states: “After night raiding had ceased to be a novelty, many people preferred to stay in their houses rather than to go out of doors even to their own domestic shelters. ... Since many people were now determined to remain in their homes, it had become necessary to introduce some indoor shelter which might reduce the risk of injury from falling masonry and furniture. The fact that many who had hitherto sheltered under their staircases or furniture had been rescued unhurt from the wreckage of houses suggested that extra protection might be given by a light structure on the ground floor.”
This new “Morrison” indoor table shelter to resist the weight of a collapsing house was explained in a new June 1941 Ministry of Home Security householder’s 18 page booklet Shelter at Home, stating: “people have often been rescued from demolished houses because they had taken shelter under an ordinary table ... strong enough to bear the weight of the falling bedroom floor.”
Overall lifesaving civil defence effectiveness in Britain and Germany during World War II
German bombing damaged or destroyed 2 million houses in Britain during World War II, but the 60,595 people killed from bombing in Britain was 0.030 persons killed per house destroyed or damaged. In London alone, 1,200,000 houses were damaged or destroyed, and 29,890 were killed by bombing, 0.025 persons killed per house destroyed or damaged. Without civil defence, the ratio of the number of people killed per house destroyed could have been much greater than 0.025-0.030. Assuming just 2 persons per house, this means that the assumption of 100% killed per damaged or destroyed house exaggerates deaths from bombing by a factor of 2/0.025 to 2/0.030 or 67 to 80.
In Germany, where there were firestorms in medieval wooden areas of Dresden and Hamburg, 300,000 people were killed and 3,600,000 houses were destroyed, a ratio of 0.083 persons killed per house destroyed. 7,500,000 people were made homeless, so there had been roughly 2 persons living in each house destroyed. Hence, the assumption of 100% killed in destroyed houses would exaggerate deaths by a factor of 2/0.083 = 24 times.
In order to learn from this mistake, we need to first accept the facts. Then implement a policy which will prevent a repetition of the costly failure. It is no good to keep weapons effects and countermeasure efficiency data secret, limited, or obscure to the public. There are three specific reasons why the public has a right to know, beyond basic democratic principles (which admittedly in some extreme circumstances might be curtailed for reasons of National Security).
First: as Oppenheimer said in 1950, the peril of secrecy is that it is the dictatorial method. Why did Hitler invest in twelve kilotons of useless tabun nerve gas, when Britain had plenty of defences (gas masks for every person, training in making gas proof rooms against liquid droplet contamination of skin, etc.) already dispersed against it? Why did Hitler invest so heavily in useless secret V1 and V2 weapons, which were costly and did not achieve their objective? Why didn't Hitler make nuclear weapons, or to put it more clearly, why did no one tell his nuclear weapons chief, Heisenberg, that boron electrode contamination in the graphite production process was the only reason why graphite appeared useless for use as a neutron moderator in plutonium production (necessitating costly and vulnerable heavy water production for use as a neutron moderator, instead)? The answer is secrecy. Scientists working under secrecy operate differently in the long-run to scientists working in the free world. Mistakes can last longer, because fewer people have the security clearances to scrutinise them and question all of the assumptions and calculations made.
Second: 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Cuban missiles crisis demonstrate clearly that threats can emerge unexpectedly. The Government intelligence about security threats can never be 100% perfect. The very nature of enemy secrecy when planning big attacks is such that it is very hard to find out about in advance. If a nuclear explosion is actually used by an enemy, it will be possible for it to be a surprise attack. Example: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as the nuclear bombing unit commander Colonel Tibbets states in his autobiography The Tibbets Story) were planned using Tibbets's experience of trying to start conventional incendiary firestorms in other Japanese cities, in order to maximise the element of surprise in order to maximise casualties, fires, and shock, so the war would be ended as soon as possible. The Government cannot therefore put all of its eggs in one basket by adopting a civil defence policy that assumes any nuclear weapons use will not come in complete surprise. (This was the mistake before Pearl Harbor and 9/11: government planners preferred "escalation" scenarios which made planning easier, and contemptuously dismissed surprise attacks by giving them the acronym BOOB, "Bolt Out Of the Blue".) Potential enemies, if they use nuclear weapons at all, are most likely to use them under surprise conditions (in order to maximise impact and reduce the risk of being stopped by countermeasures). If they announce their plans in advance, or are caught in advance, it is unlikely that they will get to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, civil defence must accept a certain small risk of an unexpected surprise attack where nuclear weapons are concerned. People should be warned that anti-civil defence propaganda about being vaporised instantly and painlessly, and claims that there is no defence against nuclear flash, flying glass, blast winds, and fallout, are actually lies. They should be informed of the facts of nuclear effects and countermeasures, so that they are aware of what can be done and how effective duck and cover (etc.) actually is in a possible attack scenario. Lies against civil defence from ignorant disarmament fanatics should no longer be ignored, but patiently answered by Government experts on nuclear weapons effects. People have a basic human right to know these facts! If they decide to stand behind a window after seeing a painfully bright flash, and thus get hit by flying glass and blown by the wind into impacts with hard objects, that will be their choice. The Government should at least make the choice available.
Third: secrecy that results in the media, Government ministers, and the public continuing to believe that there are no easy and effective countermeasures against nuclear and related threats, has the same obvious hazard that it had in the 1930s. The Nazis didn't build up stockpiles of the most feared weapons by accident! They deliberately invested in terror weapons. Therefore, the exaggeration of nuclear effects due to the decision by the Government to give up publishing new editions of Glasstone and Dolan and related publications to oppose the lies, leads to a media culture in which exaggerations of nuclear effects spiral out of control, so that terrorists are attracted to making such weapons in order to issue an ultimatum or threat which will be most likely to be acceded. It's Munich 1938. If Britain had civil defence with (most importantly of all) the widely known reliable data on the effectiveness of simple countermeasures against bombing during the early 1930s (civil defence effectiveness data from actual experiments is vital psychologically, or simple countermeasures won't be taken seriously), it would have been in a position to prevent World War II long before Munich.
Instead, it let the Nazis smell its fear, and the result was much the same situation as when trying to run away from a pack of howling wolves, or leaving a pile of money on display unguarded in your driveway to attract thieves and tempt the weak-willed. You automatically attract, and even convert people into, aggressors who wish to exploit your situation! The world always contains people who are desperate and easily convinced of the logic that "the ends justify the means" in order to solve their problems by force or threat. That's why we need a credible defence, to prevent attack or peaceful coercion through threatening ultimatums. In fact, if Britain had been stronger, the Nazi episode would have been nipped in the bud, as Winston Churchill made clear in his November 1935 Strand Magazine article, The Truth About Hitler: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet ... We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation." (Note that Churchill's essay is quoted out of the proper context by revisionist historians like the Churchill critic Patrick J. Buchanan, in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War".)
Britain could have stopped Hitler easily in 1935 and deterred the racist holocaust, if it was realistic about the effects of aerial bombardment, and had based its weapons and war effects calculations on relevant bombing experiments based on realistic but easy countermeasures, instead of using 1917 "sitting duck" bombing data for people standing in the open, watching the aircraft drop bombs on them (just like the raw data from Hiroshima, still used in all widely-hyped nuclear lies against civil defence). It's all down to the Civil Servants and what they decide to tell ministers, unless someone in the public can get interest in the subject in the media, to help the process along.
Why does the media ignore or condone weapons effects exaggerations and lies?
Kahn found that others were less able to think in so detached a fashion about the unthinkable as he was, and came under criticism for his “cold-bloodedness”; yet as Kahn once told a critic, “Would you prefer a nice warm mistake?” Case in point: while testifying before Congress, one Congressman exclaimed, “Ten million or one hundred million dead, what’s the difference?” Herken recounts how Kahn “coolly replied, ‘Ninety million, Senator.’” ...
- Herman Kahn: A Jomini for the Nuclear Age, Security Innovator, January 2, 2009, by Barry Scott Zellen.
The problem of course is that civil defence and nuclear effects are deemed, as the great and good Herman Kahn said fifty years ago, "unthinkable". It was the same for the first use of surgical antiseptics and hygiene during operations, innovations deemed immoral. Lifeboats would make ships recklessly sail into icebergs, and seatbelts would turn motorists into lunatics. Ambulances would encourage us all to regularly have accidents. Hospitals would encourage us to get ill. These lies are hard to debunk, not because they're obviously not based on facts, but because they're not based on facts. You can't use science to disprove UFOs, 11 dimensional supergravity or other supernatural belief systems very effectively, simply because science deals with facts, and does not deal with such non-factual, pseudoscience belief systems. All you can point to are the facts, which the quacks will ignore by making personal attacks on you.
In any case, Kahn never publically got into the kind of nuclear weapons effects detail (the detail is everything in this business) that this blog is about. The detailed effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuclear weapons tests were all highly classified and he was prevented from giving detailed discussions by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. His wife's security clearance was suspended at one time, because of alleged communist associations of her family.
Kahn had to work on the unclassified figures and received enormous abuse for doing so, from people like the Scientific American book reviewer and ignorant, idealistic, propaganda-delivering, lying, fanatically civil defence and life-hating lawyer James R. Newman, who took exception to Kahn's table showing a wide range of different nuclear war scenarios, with casualty rates correlated to economic recovery times, with the Khrushchev question boldly stated: "Will the survivors envy the dead?" Newman infamously attacked Kahn's On Thermonuclear War by personal ad hominem childish name-calling, referring to Herman Kahn in the April 1961 issue of Scientific America as "Genghis Kahn, a monster" and sneering about the author of On Thermonuclear War: "Is there really a Herman Kahn? It is hard to believe.... No one could write like this. No one could think like this.... This is a moral tract on mass murder: how to plan it, how to commit it, how to get away with it, how to justify it."
This gives a clear answer to the question of why nuclear effects experts have been slightly reluctant to engage in the popular media, explaining the lies of Hiroshima (for my detailed analysis of all the lies of Hiroshima, please read the previous blog post, linked here).
Let's once again quote what Kahn really wrote, which Newman so hated because it was painfully true:
"At no time did Hitler threaten to initiate war against France and England. He simply threatened to 'retaliate' if they attacked him. The Munich crisis had an incredible sequel in March 1939. ... Hitler occupied the rest of Czechslovakia. The technique he used is such an obvious prototype for a future aggressor armed with H-bombs that it is of extreme value to all who are concerned with the problem of maintaining a peaceful and secure world ..."
- Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, 1960, p. 403.
The enemy of humanity is fanaticism, defined here by the immoral code: “the ends justify the means”. It is this fanaticism that is used to defend exaggerations and lies for political ends. Exaggeration and lying about weapons effects in the hope it will be justified by ending war is also fanaticism. Weapons effects exaggerations both motivated aggression in 1914, and prevented early action against Nazi aggression in the mid-1930s, as an earlier blog post documented in detail.
Herman Kahn explained how lying weapons effects exaggerations nurtured World War II in a culture of fear in place of a relatively limited war to disarm the Nazis, in the following testimony to the 1959 hearings on the Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, page 883:
“... before World War II, for example, many of the staffs engaged in estimating the effects of bombing over-estimated by large amounts. This was one of the main reasons that at the Munich Conference and earlier occasions the British and the French chose appeasement to standing firm or fighting. Incidentally, these staff calculations were more lurid than the worst imaginations of fiction.”
Herman Kahn goes on to explain how such exaggerations of weapons effects in popular media disarmament propaganda encouraged the secret proliferation of Nazi weapons, in his book On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 390-1:
“... in spite of the tremendous scale of the violations it still took the Germans five years, from January 1933 when Hitler came in to around January 1938, before they had an army capable of standing up against the French and the British. At any time during that five-year period if the British and the French had had the will, they probably could have stopped the German rearmament program.... it is an important defect of ‘arms control’ agreements that the punishment or correction of even outright violation is not done automatically ... but takes an act of will ... one of the most important aspects of the interwar period [was] the enormous and almost uncontrollable impulse toward disarmament ... As late as 1934, after Hitler had been in power for almost a year and a half, [British Prime Minister] Ramsey McDonald still continued to urge the French that they should disarm themselves by reducing their army by 50 per cent, and their air force by 75 per cent.
“In effect, MacDonald and his supporters urged one of the least aggressive nations in Europe to disarm itself to a level equal with their potential attackers, the Germans. ... Probably as much as any other single group I think that these men of good will can be charged with causing World War II. [Emphasis by Herman Kahn.] ... Hitler came into power in January 1933 and almost immediately Germany began to rearm ... but it was not until October 14, 1933 [that] Germany withdrew from a disarmament conference and the League of Nations ... Hitler's advisors seem to have been greatly worried that this action might trigger off a violent counteraction - for example, a French occupation of the Ruhr. But the British and the French contented themselves with denouncing the action.”
The evil thing is that both during the 1930s when the Nazi menace was gathering strength, and during the Cold War when the communist menace was doing the same, weapons effects exaggerations were enforced and rewarded by the military, the politicians, the media and the public. The posthumorous prizes of the war-mongerer Alfred Nobel and the "Soviet World Peace" council's prize for lying propaganda, the "Lenin Peace Prize", rewarded lying exaggerations designed to disarm those who love freedom and peace, and make them appease the world's most evil lying terrorists. While Winston Churchill is today a widely tolerated historical figure, in the 1930s, when his warnings of racist lying evil could have been used tackle the Nazis from the start and prevent the holocaust, he was attacked by liars like Cyril M. Joad, who led the 1933 Oxford Union pacifist motion which sent out a very clear signal to the new German Chancellor, Hitler, and even in August 1939 published the mass-market appeasement-supporting Penguin book, Why War? Like fellow liars Sir Austin Chamberlain and Sir Normal Angell, Joad only profited with fame, cheers and applause from his lying war-mongering propaganda which falsified the risks from an early intervention to stop evil.
Nobody dared to condemn weapons-effects-lying pacifist propaganda then, and nobody dares to condemn it today. We still reward the lying exaggeration of the effects of nuclear weapons in our fashionable groupthink delusion that, by making civil defense and weapons effects "unthinkable", or by disarming, we make ourselves safe and secure from terrorism, war and genocide.
“... We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal. ... We learned that the institutions charged with protecting ... did not adjust their policies, plans and practices to deter or defeat it.” - Thomas H. Kean (Chair) and Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chair), Preface to The 9/11 Commission Report, by the U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004.
What about the bigger risk than conflict? Who speaks up about the far bigger risk that, if only we had disarmed and surrendered the Nazis would have been able to continue their thousand years of third reich evil, totally unopposed? Why do supposedly rational animals collectively believe in what they know deep down are complete lies? Why ad hominem attacks on those who report the facts? The answer is simple: fashionable groupthink is really fascism under disguise. When we believe in popular lies, we're doing what the supporters of Nazism and communism did, namely believing in the enforcement of a consensus of lies in the belief that "the ends justify the means". The fact that weapons effects lying has been counterproductive in the past (causing appeasement until World War became necessary) has been swept under the carpet in a fashionable groupthink of self-deception:
"Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by."
– Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 October 2005, p. 11.
(The material immediately above, truncated at this point, was extracted from the beginning of the old blog post on war linked here, which then presents the detailed evidence of war effects exaggerations causing both World Wars and leading to unnecessary suffering and failed strategies or tactics in many other wars.)
Money wasting, undemocratic politics which squanders the money we need for maintaining peace and security in the future
The most terrible wars break out after defence cutbacks leave us vulnerable to defence threats and also vulnerable to world oil prices, due to Government money squandering. In his Gettysburg speech, President Abraham Lincoln defined democratic rule as: "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Communism brought 70 years of undemocratic militarist cruelty, and created a minority rule by a dedicated, passionate "elite" of true believers who would not accept they were wrong until they bankrupt themselves. Having lived through one socialist dictatorship, Václav Klaus, the second President of the Czech Republic, and former Czech Prime Minister and Finance Minister, warned of another in the December 2003 European Journal:
"The creeping unification of Europe ... since the time of Jacques Delors [has been] managed by the bureaucrats from Brussels behind the back of the continent's population, behind the back of the citizens of individual member states."
The European Union is undemocratic in its basic construction: in Britain, all mainstream parties have been pro-European Union. Therefore, the electorate has not given any democratic referendum or effective choice on the issue of EC membership. Like the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, it is effectively a one party shambles masquerading as democracy. The question of the existence of the EU is not on the agenda, so if even if you are elected a Member of the European Parliament, you are just in the position of the greasy pole climbers of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact elite. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European Union was formed on 1 January 1995, but its roots go back to the European Coal and Steel Community formed on 23 July 1952. The analogy to the Soviet Union may sound absurd because of the lack of a military threat, but its dictatorial controls and money-squandering inefficiency are both precisely analogous to the Soviet Union's bureaucratic officialdom.
Since the European court in Strasbourg was created in 1959, it has passed 418 judgements that have reduced British parliamentary control, of which over 100 have been outright overturning of U. K. court rulings and these have mostly resulted from the passing of the 1998 signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its latest injustice, masquerading as a human right, is the "right" of convicted prisoners to vote; allowing criminal politicians get the votes they need from felons! If prisoners are to get votes, state pensions and therefore big prizes for big crimes, it will encourage rather than deter crime, which maybe proves evidence for widespread admiration of Dr Goebbels that continues in modern politics, which we will discuss later, below. The lame duck argument for this is that prisons are "not a punishment", that the "punishment is the sentencing itself, not the prison term which is about rehabilitation and showing compassion and love for convicts". The more of this horseshit that comes out of the EUSSR Nazis, the more attractive the Koran's methods (for dealing with crime) seem. OK, cutting off hands may not deter hard-core evil and will simply force criminals to use their feet to commit future crimes, but it gives REAL victims of crime a feeling that the criminal is not being rewarded! (However, evil prison reform groupthink claims that murderers are "victims" and the people murdered are the lucky ones. My "controversial" view is that prisoners should be made to work doing useful things as rehabilitation, be it chain gangs or cancer research, and if they really do excel for a long enough time and pay society back sufficiently, they might then be permitted such luxuries as a reward for genuine reform.)
The danger here is obvious. The European Union is dominated by the kind of officialdom which Europe has always produced as politicians, the degenerate lunatics who are not democrats, but adhere to political groupthink, as proved by European Union funding for the lies about unprecedented rates of global warming and funding the LHC to search for a non-existent Higgs boson, supposedly needed to break the theory of electroweak symmetry into the observed broken symmetry, a groupthink "research" lie, stealing from the taxpayers.
Britain is in dire political straits due to the national debt acquired mainly due to poor Government control of bank lending on the whim of investment bankers (who profited very well from their "mistakes") and the subsequent Government bail-out for the banks at the public expense. The Government won't bail out other businesses or their creditors which are going under, although the other businesses were run more sensibly than the banks. It bails out the banks from public taxes. Britain is not just paying interest on its debts, it's also paying out £48,000,000 a day to the European Union. Compliance with European Union regulations (some 75% of Britain's laws are now made in Brussels by the European Union) is also expensive for all U. K. businesses, the legal system, prisons, and other Government departments.
Other European Union member states generally hate Britain politically (with good reason in some respects, seeing Britain's political system and its recent history) and try to vote against Britain whenever possible. Germany pays 22,200 million Euroes (MEs) into the EU budget, and takes out only 12,200 MEs. However, it is still worthwhile for Germany to be in the EU, because Germany has a 70,800 ME trade surplus with the EU. The same goes for France and Italy.
Britain, however, is in the opposite situation, with a 49,400 ME trade deficit with the EU (all of these data are for 2010, annualized from the October 2010 monthly figures). Britain doesn't therefore benefit from trading with other EU countries: it loses out by doing so. If the interdependence of trade with the EU was helping Britain, it would have a trade surplus with the EU like Germany does, not a trade deficit with the EU. We import more from Europe than we sell to Europe.
Quite apart from this financial, legal, and trade drawback to the European Union for Britain, we have the problem of unemployment, with the Government in 2004 falsely forecasting an influx of 13,000 migrants from new European Union members, when the figure was actually about a million. This is great when there are a shortage of workers, but it is bad news when unemployment is high and taxes for those employed has to rise still higher to provide for the increased benefits payouts.
Finally, we have the extravagance of the European Union's 137 new embassies worldwide costing £5.8 billion and employing an army of 7,000 people, including 46 lucky staff who will be located in Barbados (don't worry, there will be lots of inspections of the Barbados EU embassy by happy officials flying over from Brussels to keep up the efficiency).
The new London EU embassy at 32 Smith Square cost £20,000,000 to buy and £5,600,000 to renovate with a wood-decked roof terrace, and with all 68 staff provided with an £800 Herman Miller Mirra office chair accompanied by an Italian £400 Artemide designer lamp. The EU is so inefficient financially that its accounts were last signed off by auditors 16 years ago. Prime Minister Blair's "spin-doctor", Lord Mandelson, was paid a basic salary (excluding the generous expenses) of £182,500 in his final year as European Commissioner for Trade. Because of this EU wastage and the public's perceived cover-up over the Iraq War, the increasing financial cutbacks will return us to a 1930s Great Depression where the flexible deterrent security needed for emerging threats from countries like Iran will both economically and politically incorrect. The Soviet Union was crushed by economic failure, inefficiency, and manipulated oil prices. The same fate awaits backers of the European Union.
The costly and pseudoscientific eco-eugenics and EUSSR dictatorship policies sneaked into Westminister by the successive Con/Lab Governments were originated by Hitler and Lenin, respectively. Hitler came up the idea of using pesudoscientific fearmongering to circumvent democracy. He used eugenics, while our Government renames it eco-political-correctness. But the science behind it is the same: vacuous. And people will die needlessly by green liars diverting money from water and sanitation into carbon credit traders and green pension funds for the BBC and the Guardian journalists/readers (who seem to be savvy financially, despite backing a regime whose debt legacy will cripple this country for decades). Why should Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg emulate the Nazi and Lenin clones, if he wants to win the next election? The Lib Dems have no future trying to be yet another clone of the anti-democratic pro-EUSSR liars. Nick Clegg needs to read Delingpole’s book, “How to be right”. The Lib Dems, Tories and Labour are now all clones of Lenin, and it is only by going right that the Lib Dems will be able to capture votes from disaffected Cons and labs who object to our EUSSR membership, our eco-Nazi carbon credit trading propaganda, and the crippling costs these involve which would be better spend on public services, lower taxes, and other economic recovery measures at a time of recession. If our withdrawl from the EUSSR leads Germany and France to ban imports of British goods, good, we’re got a trade deficit anyway and we can retaliate by banning any imports of German and French cars, wine, beer, and food, and banning holidays to those countries too. Thugs respect toughness, not appeasement:
Leo McKinstry (Daily Express, 4 March 2011, page 12): “Yesterday, in response to mounting outrage about the destruction of our sovereignty, the Government had the nerve to claim that membership of the European Union ‘is in the national interest of the UK.’ ... How can the obliteration of our self-governance possibly be in our own national interests? ...
“There is nothing more grotesque than the spectacle of an unaccountable European court giving us lectures about prisoners’ voting rights when not a single European judge has ever been voted into office. Now comes yet another EU outrage, imposed with the collusion of our enfeebled Government. Thanks to a new EU law tens of thousands of migrants from countries in Eastern Europe will soon be able to come and claim full welfare benefits. In 2004, when the eight former Soviet-dominated nations including Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia were given membership of the EU, the Labour government imposed restrictions that meant newcomers from those states were not entitled to social security. ... But now seven years on those restrictions are about to be lifted. Arrivals ... will be allowed to claim housing benefit, jobseekers’ allowance and council tax benefit. ... The result is certain to be a disaster for our country, pushing up the welfare bill and increasing the strain on our public services. ... Once again the madness of borderless Europe has triumphed over national economic realities.
“Immigration is already completely out of control in this country with more than 500,000 people arriving here every year. The new EU law will wreck the coalition’s plans to reform the bloated, unsustainable welfare system. In the teeth of vociferous opposition from the Left and sentimental protests from pressure groups Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is trying to push through changes that will restrict entitlements to social security, encourage more people into work and reduce the mammoth £200billion annual cost of welfare, by far the biggest single item of Government expenditure. But all his efforts will be shot to pieces by an EU measure that will drastically drive up the claimant count, promote idleness and further undermine social cohesion.
“The same mandarins told us, when the eight former Soviet nations joined the EU, that just 13,000 migrants from Eastern Europe would come here. The total has been well over one million. Moreover the political elite has presented mass immigration as a vehicle for prosperity. In truth it has just brought higher taxes, economic decline, falling wages and social breakdown.”
Politicians are only interested in lies in science, not facts. Out of ignorance, apathy and arrogance, they steer clear of the facts, because to do otherwise is political suicide for the incompetent blundering fools. They don't want to get involved in anything genuine, for that is too courageous. They work on the groupthink myth that the facts are the same thing as the consensus of supposedly expert opinion, neglecting the fact that the greasy pole climbers at the top of scientific groupthink are similar fraudsters to those who make false promises and represent popular delusions to be elected. The consensus of expert opinion, said the great and good Richard P. Feynman, is the definition of anti-science:
"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion."
- R. P. Feynman (quoted by Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, 2006, p. 307).
This isn't what sells the newspapers or gets the quacks elected, which requires "lynch mob tactics" lying to conform to the prejudices people have already. Newspapers and politicians don't reform human prejudices: they cater for them! Newspapers have to sell newspapers. Politians have to get votes. The Washington Post didn't publish special relativity on the front page in 1905 when Einstein published his paper; the hype came when it was politically correct to sell newspapers. Bethlehem News didn't publish "It's the first Christmas" in big letters on the front page when Jesus was born. The media, just like elected politicians, lacks courage. They tell you lies you love. The best lecturer at university was the head of marketing, the most important subject there is. "Marketing is catering to the needs of the customers, not trying to sell ice to eskimos!" Like politics, media caters for people's existing perceived needs. If you want to reform deep prejudices, you have to write a convincing book before you can hope to get any real interest from the media.
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (1513), Chapter 6: “And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as the leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.” The struggle for progress against the vested interests of the status quo is politics, and the extension of politics against unreasonable opponents who won’t even listen or actually try to block progress is, as Clausewitz defined it, war: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” War isn't a mistake like Professor Joad thought. Either side can end it at any time, simply by surrendering. Pacifism is Hitler's and Stalin's legacy. Neither wanted war: they wanted pacifist surrender and peaceful genocide of their opponents, and peaceful nations had to stand up for justice or be butchered. As Winston Churchill wrote in his 1930 book My Early Life: "Great quarrels, it has been said, often arise from small occasions but never from small causes." In writing my book, I'm going to expose all the lies from politicians, pseudoscientists, pacifists, and media bigwigs.
"... wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts ... are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy."
- J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1950 (quoted by Howard Morland, The Secret that Exploded, Random House, New York, 1981; unnumbered preliminary page).
Update (4 February 2011) on the Egyptian crisis and Middle East stability
Above: the latest crisis was started by Mohamed Bouazizi, a fruit seller in Tunisia, burning himself to death on 17 December 2010 in protest against corrupt dictatorial officialdom by a petty bureaucrat. The public were so angered they lost their fear of the regime, clashed with the security forces and ousted President Ben Ali on 15 january 2011. This led to a series of "domino effect" protests against allegedly undemocratic or corrupt governments in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan, which are comparable to the 1989 domino effect when the Soviet Union relaxed its grip on Eastern Europe.
Egypt crisis: Israel faces danger in every direction
The Egyptian crisis is ringing alarm bells in Jerusalem, writes David Horovitz.
Daily Telegraph, Friday 4 February 2011
The Middle East is in ferment at the moment – but despite the general excitement, the outcome could be a grim one for Israel, and for the West more generally.
In the past few weeks, we have seen a president ousted in Tunisia. We've seen protests in Yemen. We've seen Iran essentially take control of Lebanon, where its proxy, Hizbollah, has ousted a relatively pro-Western prime minister and inserted its own candidate. We've seen the King of Jordan rush to sack his cabinet amid escalating protests. We've seen reports that similar demonstrations are planned for Syria, where the president, Bashar Assad, will find it far harder to get away with gunning down the crowds than his father did in 1982. And most dramatically, we are seeing the regime in Egypt – the largest, most important Arab country – totter, as President Mubarak faces unprecedented popular protest, and the likelihood that he will have to step down sooner rather than later.
It is tempting to be smug. Egypt's blink-of-an-eye descent into instability underlines afresh the uniqueness of Israel, that embattled sliver of enlightened land in a largely dictatorial region. Those who like to characterise it as the root of all the Middle East's problems look particularly foolish: the people on the streets aren't enraged by Israel, but because their countries are so unlike Israel, so lacking in the freedoms and economic opportunities that both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs take for granted.
Yet the country is deeply concerned. The main worry is over a repeat of the events in Iran a little over 30 years ago, when popular protest ousted the Shah, only to see him replaced by a far more dangerous, corrupt, misogynist and intolerant regime. Iran is plainly delighted by what is unfolding. With peerless hypocrisy, a government that mowed down its own people less than two years ago is encouraging the same spirit of protest in Egypt. Its allies in the Muslim Brotherhood are well placed to fill any leadership vacuum – and, for all the group's dubious claims to be relatively moderate, it embraces leadership figures deeply hostile to Israel and to the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, it should not be forgotten, gave birth to Hamas, the terrorist group which now runs Gaza, after killing hundreds in its takeover.
The danger for the Egyptians is that, when the protests are over, their brave efforts will have replaced Mubarak not with a leadership more committed to freedom and democracy, but quite the reverse. Yet for Israelis, it underlines the challenges we face when it comes to peacemaking.
The current Egyptian civil strife creates a problem the West regarding Egyptian President Muhammad Mubarak. President Ronald Reagan backed the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviet Union dictators, and he also backed Mubarak, but this is just like the wartime relationship between Winston Churchill and Joe Stalin. When the chips are down, you need to be friends with the devil, if he is fighting the same common enemy. Moreover, President Mubarak is not exactly the devil, although he has held on to power for too long without full democracy. The Americans are worried that Islamic extremists may gain power in Egypt when he goes, maybe converting much of the arab "Middle East" (if that really includes North Africa) into an oil-rich, heavily armed, anti-West superpower that includes nuclear armed Iran. However, I think the way to be sure to breed such nightmare problems is to try to manipulate the situation, making more hostility towards the West. Sometimes you just have to let people sort out their own problems or they will resent your "interference" in what they regard as their own affairs, although of course it is not really Egyptian affairs, since it affects the whole world in the long run.
The Jewish versus Islam conflict affects American attitudes because many powerful rich Americans are Jews, and a few are outspoken and influential extremists: they are God's "chosen people" and anyone who fails to grasp that is clearly unclean. Similarly, there are outspoken extremist Islamic zealots, real terrorist threats. Given Jewish influence in American politics and given Islamic terrorism against America on 9/11, it is possible that if the chips go down, America will be (in effect) forced to side with Israel, while arab states and Islam in general will be (in effect) supported the BBC and it's wide sphere of political influence. E.g., the current British Government of Cameron has a brand-new spin doctor who comes from the news department of the BBC: Craig Oliver was the controller of English at BBC Global News, and is husband of current BBC newsreader wife Joanna Gosling. We're not hinting that this new Government affiliation with a BBC news editor indicates some kind of political corruption of the news, because former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons has already exposed how the BBC "news" propaganda machine works from the inside. The fact is, the BBC is a groupthink culture quango.
Arab settlements coincide with ancient God-promised Jewish homelands, but using this claim as a logical argument for annexation is reminiscent of certain 1930s propaganda; it is unconvincing both to BBC far-left atheism and also to Christians who see orthodox Jews basically stamping on the message of Jesus today, just like they did two millenna ago. Others say that many of the lands laid claim to by both Islam and Jew are really the sacred Holy lands of Jesus. This Jew-Islam conflict, if it escalates gradually over time, is a sure way to generate a future showdown between Islam and Israel, probably at a time when both sides have missiles armed with some kind of nuclear weapons, and backing from other countries, leading to a world war as other countries step in to support each side, escalating the conflict.
Last night Louis Theroux's BBC programme "Ultra Zionists" was broadcast, which won't help the BBC's reputation for supporting the arab case against Israeli propaganda, but I think it was justified since it gave some real insight into the fundamental problem. Basically, there is an analogy between the way that in 1967 one country used military force to reclaim land that it laid ancient claim to, and the way another country in the 1930s was doing the same thing and getting away with it on the international arena, although I have sympathy for the Jews and of course Israel is not trying to exterminate the arabs. Israel just doesn't give a single damn about the arabs who are unclean ... just like the Bible decrees, thank Jehovah!
Extract from an earlier post:
The Saudis also donated $1 million a month to the anti-communists (the Contras) in Latin America. (This success at selling arms for favors led to the Iran-Contra Affair, approved by Reagan on 7 January 1986. Oliver North on the NSC staff sold anti-tank missiles to Iran via Israel; Iran released five American hostages and North gave the profits to the Contras.) But it was the financial pressure on the Soviet economy from the loss of oil revenue which gave Reagan the leverage to make Gorbachev agree to arms cuts at the Reykjavik conference on 11-12 October 1986. Gorbachev himself admitted in his 1996 memoirs that the Soviet Union could no longer afford to buy American grain and also had to cut Siberian oil supplies to Eastern Europe in order to compensate for the loss of revenues caused by the falling price of oil: "a sharp drop in oil prices cost the Soviet Union nearly half of its hard currency earnings." (Mikhail Gorbachev, Memoirs, Doubleday, N.Y., 1996, p. 468.) Gorbachev was certain that Reagan engineered the drop in oil prices as a lethal attack on the Soviet economy, as he argued to Reagan at Reykjavik, when Reagan asked Gorbachev why he had stopped buying American grain to feed his people:
"It is very simple. You can tell them that the money with which the Russians could have bought grain ended up in the United States and Saudi Arabia because of the sharp drop in oil prices."
- Mikhail Gorbachev to Ronald Reagan, 12 October 1986, U.S. National Security Archive, "Transcript of Reagan-Gorbachev Summit in Reykjavik: Part 3", FBIS-USR-93-113.
Above: Egyptian protestors wearing improvised protective headgear, offering some significant protection against flying missiles like stones and debris. Innovation is the key to success: these photos illustrate the latest (February 2011) ideas in improvised emergency civil defense countermeasures against flying debris. Necessity is the mother of invention. Some of these easily-made lightweight “crazy”-looking helmets offer protection against skull fractures from falling and/or horizontally directed impacts, and may be relevant to civil defense countermeasures against head impacts caused by bodily displacement or flying debris from blast waves in wartime explosions. Carrying water bottles or even bread rolls around the head offers a useful way to absorb impact energy, as well as a handy snack. It conforms to the Cresson Kearny approach to improvised, cheap “expedient” countermeasures. Obviously you can duck if you see debris moving towards your face, but you are vulnerable where you are not looking, e.g. you can't duck if a flying object falls vertically on your head because you have no eyes looking directly upwards. The same for the sides and back of the head.
Update (11 February 2011): Mubarak has been forced out today due to escalating political pressure from the democracy protestors. The problem is that whoever replaces him by democratic vote will have resentment towards America for three decades of propping up Mubarak's emergency power regime for thirty years. I've just re-read Pincher's 1978 Inside Story: A Documentary of the Pursuit of Power and added a couple of quotations (inserted above in this post) relevant to Sir Martin Gilbert (see comments of this blog post), which relate a 1974 episode between the Prime Minister, Gilbert, and Pincher. Pincher also discusses the history of the Arab-Jew biases of successive British Prime Ministers and their policies in chapter 36, "Politicians and Zionism".
Pincher claims that Arab speaking experts in the British Foreign Office were generally pro-Arab. Eden sided with Israel and France in the Suez invasion crisis, which was a war against Egypt in 1956, which backfired when both the USSR and the USA sided with Egypt at the United Nations, so Britain, Israel and France had to either back down or escalate to a hopeless conflict. Pincher writes on page 340 that Prime Minister "Macmillan seemed neutral, while Douglas-Home tended to be pro-Arab, while doing his best to look neutral, but with the accession of Harold Wilson in 1964 the Israelis had a British Prime Minister firmly biased in their favour ..." Consequently, the Israeli Army was supplied with reconditioned British Centurion tanks, which they used to great effect in their Six-Day War of June 1967 against Nasser's Egyptian forces. (Wikipedia: "The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. At the war's end, Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.") This 1967 militant action by Israel using British supplied weapons is the root of the ongoing troubles in the Middle East today. British support for Israel's Jews was briefly reduced by that war, but was revived in September 1969 when Islamic fanatic Colonel Gadhafi overthrew King Idris of Libya. The final major Arab-Israeli or Islam-Jew war to date was the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, when the Egyptians and Syrians launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, which is the most holy day in the Jewish calendar. (The old trick of launching a surprise attack on a holy day is ubiquitous in history. The Roman Empire finally captured Syracuse in 212 BC after a two year seige by making a surprise attack during the Festival of Artemis. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Sunday December 7, 1941.) Despite the element of surprise, British supplied Centurion tanks enabled Israel to win. One significant effect of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was a major world oil crisis, due to oil prices rocketing.
The overall conclusion from my perspective is that history demonstrates that a coalition of Islamic, Arab states has launched a surprise war in the past, and failed to win due to a lack of adequate arms. With the wealth acquired from oil and increasing Iranian nuclear weapons technology over the past four decades, the situation could change in the future. Traditionally, Israeli military and intelligence (Mossad) forces have taken a very hard line against Islam with tear gas, helicopter gunships blowing up civilian Arab settlements and other heavy-handed warfare, so it may begin to feel the anger in the coming years. Israel has nuclear weapons, and has support from a significant number of "elite" Americans. However, Russia and Britain in general tends to show greater sympathy to the Arabs. These factors are important because if you look at World War I, it is alleged to have occurred when large powers took sides in a regional conflict, escalating the crisis. World War II disproved this naive analysis of World War I, by showing that simply trying to keep out of a regional conflict (Prime Minister Chamberlain's plan of appeasement) actually allows the situation to escalate by itself in an even more dangerous way, since the aggressors are free to do whatever they want without any outside interference. So it is a thorny issue with no simplistic solutions, a case of the devil or the dark blue sea. If Britain had tried to keep out of World War I by appeasement of the Kaiser and refusing to declare war when Belgium was invaded, Europe would have fallen to Germany which was perhaps more keen on war, and more expansionist and militaristic, in 1914 than it was in 1938! The most radical Islamic fundamentalists are similarly keen to expand Islam worldwide, reforming or disposing of infidels. Even the moderate Muslims recognise that there are serious issues between the Arabs and Israel over Palestine, which in the worst-case scenario represents a possible future flash point like Sarajevo in 1914 or the Sudentenland in 1938. We need to find realistic, not idealistic, solutions well ahead of the next "surprise" war. Pretending all is well, or collecting peace agreement signatures, has been tried before with disastrous consequences for all.
All of the realistic solutions need to tackle political correctness about society, science and religion. First, society must adapt to new technology, instead of assuming that the existing situation is best. Internet database systems that are sufficiently secure to allow regular access to online bank accounts are also sufficiently secure to allow a daily referendum of the citizens on key issues, replacing occasional old-fashioned elections with the real daily vote democracy of Ancient Greece. This would take away the corruptive centralized power and "democratic" government secrecy that leads an elected dictator to start a world war on a whim after being elected to a four year term. Thus the King, President or Prime Minister would have regular feedback from the citizens, not just from the few extremists controlling newspapers, the BBC TV, and rioters. Second, science needs to be opened up so that it is no longer controlled by a few powerful priesthood-type leaders like Sir Paul Nurse and Dr Phil Jones. It needs to focus more on the hard factual mechanisms that explain real world data, and less on "peer"-review politics that censor out or obfuscate the facts just to defend status quo. Third, religions need to be overhauled scientifically by law to eliminate religious bigotry: nobody, not Jesus, not the Pope, in religion or anything else must ever be abused as an excuse to deny the fundamental right of others to know, understanding and scientifically test the facts of nature. Creationism thus needs to be updated sooner or later to the DNA mechanism behind ongoing genetic evolution following the big bang, to eliminate ignorant conflict with hard science knowledge. Christian and Jewish moral and military weaknesses (pacifism) were shown up during the 1930s when the Nazis were appeased, instead of forcefully opposed and halted. Better understanding of the Koran's tough approach to ensuring morality would undermine hard core terrorists. A toughened up Western morality would be in a stronger position to resist or deter fanaticism. Appeasement or weakness combined with "politically correct" (detestably low) moral standards invites WWIII.
Fredrick Forsyth in today's London Daily Express 11 February 2011, page 13:
THE WEST'S FEAR AS EGYPTIANS REVOLT
If a Muslim despot only cracks down like a ton of bricks on his local Al Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood we have to support him. He may be nasty, cruel, corrupt, but if he clamps down on the nutters it seems we have to back him.
Well, that was until Ben Ali (30 years on the throne) fell in Tunisia. Now it is Mubarak in Egypt. Strung out across North Africa and the Middle East are Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. All have been-there-for-years non-democratic regimes but they all crush religious fanatics with a ruthlessness we in the West would never dare employ. And now all the thrones are trembling.
Fredrick Forsyth in today's London Daily Express 11 February 2011, page 13:
FASCISM DIDN'T GO - IT FOUND ANOTHER NAME
MANY years ago ... I spent hours with an elderly rabbi who had fought fascism all his life. One of the wisest men I had ever met, he had the rare gift of original thought.
He was adamant fascism was not a political creed but a deeply imbued standard of behaviour. In other words, if you treat your fellow man in a fascist way, that makes you one. And he insisted there were four pillars to this behaviour.
One was a total and blind commitment to the current political and moral orthodoxy. The second was the angry repudiation of any possibility of variant thought.
He concluded this blinkered bigotry was seldom the standard of the truly evil (these were right at the very top) but of the deeply stupid.
At number three he listed a relentless no-mercy persecution of those refusing or unable to conform to the imposed orthodoxy often stemming from the anonymous denunciation and presaged by the intimidating phrase: “We have received a complaint that you ...”
The final criterion of fascist behaviour is the demand for total control of thought, speech, writing – even body language and gesture.
Looking round at the persecution, often at staggering public expense and on the basis of anonymous denunciation, of harmless Christians and others, I am struck by this. The rabbi’s four criteria of practising fascism are absolutely identical to the tenets of political correctness.
Personal comments on the legacy of Nazism and communist bigotry in the world
Sean Devereux, for a time my "sports teacher" at Salesian school, was murdered in Somalia in 1993. I got to know his anger and arrogance quite well when dodging sports lessons to read books in the library. As far as I was concerned as a kid who had been immersed in Christianity, sports were a an immoral substitute for conflict, a struggle to "beat" others which was immoral, or at least not 100% compatible with what seemed to be the deeper message from Jesus. It was not too easy for me to communicate my concerns about the innate immorality of trying to "win" and make your other competitors "losers", and I saw the same arrogance in a TV documentary made about his murder, where some of the local thugs threatened him and he didn't exactly go out of his way to pacify them (he bit the finger of some guy why was pointing his finger at his face). So from this cent's worth of experience, don't go biting the fingers of armed thugs when you're basically living on their territory.
Matthew 5:39: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is partly due to the context of Jesus instructing his disciples in good public relations for dealing with the case when someone bigoted comes along (the equivalent to the modern fascist) and tries to humiliate you with a slap in the face (Jesus was angry on other occasions, see Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18, and John 2:13-22. In other words, turning the other cheek is a case of trying to be funny, turning anger into laughter. This works to help you "save face" when your supporters are in the majority, but it fails when you're alone and outnumbered, where it only makes the thugs more angry and encourages further aggression and an escalation of violence.
Pacifism is not Christianity; why fanatical groupthink pacifism is the enemy of humanity
"The fall of Singapore to the Japanese Army on February 15th 1942 is considered one of the greatest defeats in the history of the British Army and probably Britain’s worst defeat in World War Two. The fall of Singapore in 1942 clearly illustrated the way Japan was to fight in the Far East – a combination of speed and savagery that only ended with the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945.
"Singapore, an island at the southern end of the Malay Peninsula, was considered a vital part of the British Empire and supposedly impregnable as a fortress. The British saw it as the "Gibraltar in the Far East".
"The surrender of Singapore demonstrated to the world that the Japanese Army was a force to be reckoned with though the defeat also ushered in three years of appalling treatment for the Commonwealth POW’s who were caught in Singapore. ... One story told about the attitude of the British Army in Singapore was of a young Army officer complaining that the newly completed defences in Singapore might put off the Japanese from landing there. ... British troops stationed in Singapore were also told that the Japanese troops were poor fighters; alright against soldiers in China who were poor fighters themselves, but of little use against the might of the British Army.
"The Japanese onslaught through the Malay Peninsula took everybody by surprise. Speed was of the essence for the Japanese, never allowing the British forces time to re-group. This was the first time British forces had come up against a full-scale attack by the Japanese. Any thoughts of the Japanese fighting a conventional form of war were soon shattered. The British had confidently predicted that the Japanese would attack from the sea. This explained why all the defences on Singapore pointed out to sea. It was inconceivable to British military planners that the island could be attacked any other way – least of all, through the jungle and mangrove swamps of the Malay Peninsula. But this was exactly the route the Japanese took.
"As the Japanese attacked through the Peninsula, their troops were ordered to take no prisoners as they would slow up the Japanese advance. A pamphlet issued to all Japanese soldiers stated: 'When you encounter the enemy after landing, think of yourself as an avenger coming face to face at last with his father’s murderer. Here is a man whose death will lighten your heart.'
"For the British military command in Singapore, war was still fought by the ‘rule book’. Social life was important in Singapore and the Raffles Hotel and Singapore Club were important social centres frequented by officers. An air of complacency had built in regarding how strong Singapore was – especially if it was attacked by the Japanese. When the Japanese did land at Kota Bharu aerodrome, in Malaya, Singapore’s governor, Sir Shenton Thomas is alleged to have said 'Well, I suppose you’ll (the army) shove the little men off.'
"The attack on Singapore occurred almost at the same time as Pearl Harbour. By December 9th 1941, the RAF had lost nearly all of its front line aeroplanes after the Japanese had attacked RAF fields in Singapore. Any hope of aerial support for the army was destroyed before the actual attack on Singapore had actually begun.
"Britain’s naval presence at Singapore was strong. A squadron of warships was stationed there lead by the modern battleship "Prince of Wales" and the battle cruiser "Repulse".
"On December 8th 1941, both put out to sea and headed north up the Malay coast to where the Japanese were landing. On December 10th, both ships were sunk by repeated attacks from Japanese torpedo bombers. The RAF could offer the ships no protection as their planes had already been destroyed by the Japanese. The loss of both ships had a devastating impact on morale in Britain. Sir Winston Churchill wrote in his memoirs: 'I put the telephone down. I was thankful to be alone. In all the war I never received a more direct shock.'
"Only the army could stop the Japanese advance on Singapore. The army in the area was led by Lieutenant General Arthur Percival. He had 90,000 men there – British, Indian and Australian troops. The Japanese advanced with 65,000 men lead by General Tomoyuki Yamashita. Many of the Japanese troops had fought in the Manchurian/Chinese campaign and were battle-hardened. Many of Percival’s 90,000 men had never seen combat.
"At the Battle of Jitra in Malaya (December 11th and 12th 1941), Percival’s men were soundly beaten and from this battle were in full retreat. The Japanese attack was based on speed, ferocity and surprise. To speed their advance on Singapore, the Japanese used bicycles as one means of transport. Captured wounded Allied soldiers were killed where they lay. Those who were not injured but had surrendered were also murdered – some captured Australian troops were doused with petrol and burned to death. Locals who had helped the Allies were tortured before being murdered. The brutality of the Japanese soldiers shocked the British. But the effectiveness of the Japanese was shown when they captured the capital of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, on January 11th 1942."
Above: "The process of indoctrination is made even easier by the fact that a small success rate is sufficient. During World War II, Dr H. V. Dicks made an extensive study of the psychological and political characteristics of German prisoners. Only 11 percent were Nazi 'fanatics', all others having some or many reservations about Nazi doctrine. This percentage did not change with the fortunes of war, nor did it change much after the war ended. In 1948, 15 percent of Germans expressed an admiration for Goebbels; and even by 1955, 10 or 11 percent of Germans under twenty-five still admired Hitler. ... Ten percent, coupled with powerful leaders, can bring about world war. War, it seems, is an activity fomented by by the few for the detriment of the many."
- Robin Clarke, Science of War and Peace, Jonathan Cape, London, 1971, page 220. (Note that Clarke fails to cite any reference to H. V. Dicks in his bibliography, possibly because he disagrees with the facts about obedience to authority, racism and groupthink consensus passed off as "science" as cause of so much absolute evil?)
The problem with Robin Clarke 1971 Science of War and Peace is that it ignores all of the military and diplomatic lessons of how WWI and WWII were created, mainly because Robin Clarke ignores the analysis of Herman Kahn and simply quotes the evil Newman review in his evil Scientific American article attacking civil defence! Robin Clarke uses Newman's evil attack as an excuse to lie about civil defence, and then fills up his book with lies supporting the very liars and lies that led to WWI and to WWII! Like his earlier (1968) book on chemical and biological warfare, We All Fall Down, he makes exactly the same civil defence error and weapons/wars effects exaggeration errors that were behind both WWI and WWII! How could anyone have written published such lying horseshit? His book is therefore a meaningless jumble of incoherent, sometimes correct and sometimes downright evil, ramblings by "authority figures", unguided by the facts of war. Possibly the author never experienced the kind of fascist groupthink that makes life hell for a kid who has any sort of "defect" like hearing and speech problems, which show up the true nature of humanity under the two-faced smiles and patronising abuse.
Dr Ernst Hass, “Common Opponent Sought ... and Found?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1968, pages 8-11, discusses the alleged risk of a new ice age, with the Antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea, and states in second-to-last paragraph on page 11:
“... Why should we therefore not replace the present arms race among nations with a common fight against a global opponent? If we actually have to expect the next ice age, we will have won first prize with this change of attitude. Even if the Antarctic ice cap does not show any tendency toward sliding into the ocean, it still will have caused us to utilize huge invested means, presently completely unproductive, for the expansion or the improvement of our common living space. ...”
I think this November 1968 statement is pretty important, the argument is that the nuclear arms race should be replaced by a fear that unites humanity towards a common goal. I know that this groupthink horseshit influenced the Club of Rome 1974 report idea about the world having a "cancer" called "man", because Hass’s 1968 article is discussed on page 212 of Robin Clarke’s Science of War and Peace:
“... We may be on the verge of another ice age. ... Even if the threat of the next ice age is not imminent, Dr Hass suggests, we will lose little and gain much by fighting this common enemy. ...”
So the original germ of the idea of uniting the people against a “common enemy” (the entire basis of Dr Goebbels propaganda) was first explicitly applied to environmental scare mongering by Dr Hass in 1968. Then it was re-directed against “overpopulation” by the Club of Rome in 1974, and finally against humanity itself. When the ice age failed to appear, global warming took its place!
This is inhumane because money being wasted on expensive, inefficient high-maintenance wind farms to pollute the shore line and the planet, could be better spent on humanity instead. Anne Frank died in a concentration camp holocaust not from a gas chamber but from evil neglect, and no amount of bloodthirsty hot air and CO2 Nazism from the fanatical, unelected quango liars of the one-to-many BBC propaganda media or other ignorant, dictatorial left-wing Nazis will change that fact:
“Ever since writing my TV shows in the Eighties I have been talking to students, teachers and the general public and enthusing about the amazing possibilities for science and technology in the future. But over 30 years I have seen a terrible change in science education. Role models such as Dalton, Faraday and Curie are hardly ever mentioned ... Kids are introduced to science as something that is life-threatening and deprived of exploration ... They are being brainwashed into believing that science and technology is crippling the Earth and our future when exactly the opposite is true. Science education has been turned upside down by worry merchants and it is already costing us dearly in a widespread lack of understanding – it is ignorance that breeds fear ... If we scrapped completely the foolhardy and scientifically unsound chase to reduce carbon, while still aiming for greater efficiency in energy usage, we would have all the money needed to bring the Third World out of poverty, save millions of lives year on year, and create a fairer and far more balanced world ...”
- Johnny Ball, “It’s Not the End of the World”, Daily Express, 21 December 2009, p. 13.
Update (22 Feb 2011) on Colonel Gadaffi's use of mercenaries to shoot demonstrators in Libya:
In a 2006 post the 1956 Hungarian uprising and the 1968 Prague Spring were mentioned, both of which were mercilessly suppressed by Warsaw Pact (aka USSR) tanks, like the 1989 Chinese protest in Tiananmen Square. Colonel Gadaffi has very astutely recognised that it is foolish to expect his soldiers to shoot their own people, so he has shipped in large numbers of mercenaries on reportedly huge salaries to do his dirty work. The 2011 revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt only succeeded because the troops refused to massacre the civilian protestors! If Gadaffi is allowed to massacre all protestors in cold blood, the revolution in Libya will be suppressed and will fail. There are various other possibilities, such as part or all of the official military in Libya opposing the mercenaries and Gadaffi, and thus provoking a full-scale civil war. The point is, the "domino effect" is not automatic. The fall of communism dictatorship in Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1989-1992 did not spread to China. The mechanism behind the "domino effect" has its limits. Unarmed protestors can only overthrow a dictatorship if the latter is unprepared to massacre the protestors. While the regime shoots protestors, the day for change has not arrived.
UPDATE 1-Africa mercenaries used in Libya crackdown-ambassador
By Henry Foy
NEW DELHI Feb 22 (Reuters) - African mercenaries are being used by Libya to crush protests, prompting some army troops to switch sides to the opposition, Libya's ambassador to India, who resigned in the wake of the crackdown, said on Tuesday.
"They are from Africa, and speak French and other languages," Ali al-Essawi told Reuters in an interview, adding that he was receiving information from sources within the OPEC-member country.
Essawi, who has left the embassy since he resigned on Monday to protest the violent crackdown and is now staying at a hotel in New Delhi, said he had been told there had been army defections.
"They (troops) are Libyans and they cannot see foreigners killing Libyans so they moved beside the people," Essawi said, looking nervous and agitated.
Diplomats have said the U.N. Security Council would hold a closed-door meeting on Tuesday to discuss the crisis in Libya.
"Libyans cannot do anything against the air fighters. We do not call for international troops, but we call on the international community to save the Libyans," Essawi said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Essawi told Reuters that he expected more diplomats at foreign missions to resign due to the ongoing violence in Libya. He said ambassadors in China, Poland, Tunisia, the Arab League, and the United States had also stepped down.
"Fighter aircraft were bombing civilians on the streets of Tripoli, this is unprecedented violence," Essawi said.
(Reporting by Henry Foy; Writing by Paul de Bendern; Editing by Alistair Scrutton)
Update (23 Feb 2011): Prime Minister Chamberlain, whoops, I mean Cameron is in Qatar preaching democracy. Which is strange partly because he's needed here to deal with evacuation of Britons from Libya, and partly because he's not exactly the best spokesman of democracy, refusing to have a referendum on the British membership of the EUSSR. (On 23 February in Qatar, Cameron said that the EUSSR's £1.5 billion-a-year "Neighbourhood Policy" programme which has pumped money into Gaddafi's dictatorship for over a decade costing British taxpayers £180 million a year, has been "poured down a big black hole." Well, Cameron, why not shut up complaining about the dictatorship in the EUSSR and get us out of it. It's easier to denounce the evil of Brussels if are not part of it, i.e. if we don't have any token representives there! Staying in the EUSSR while it continues to squander billions that could feed the hungry and end poverty and commits crimes against humanity is like Chamberlain's appeasing of the Nazis in the belief he could reform Hitler's ambitions using his personal "strength of character".)
Above: Colonel Gaddafi issuing death sentence against protestors, 22 February 2011. Elite powers, rules, regulations and laws are human inventions supposedly designed to make the world a better place, but they are always perverted by criminals, "jobsworth" petty officialdom against the innocent and the just.
Update (25 Feb 2011):
Fredrick Forsyth, Daily Express, 25 Feb 2011, page 13:
TRUCKER WHOSE LIES BEGAN THE IRAQ WAR
YEARS ago I became aware of the existence of an Iraqi defector and informant codenamed simply Curveball. ... His name is Rafid al-Janabi.
He was always a liar and conman who took the German BND, the CIA and our government for a massive ride and probably did more than any other to justify the invasion of Iraq.
He actually defected in 1999 and to (of all people) the Germans. He said he had been manager of a huge chemical plant and knew all about Saddam’s chemical warfare programme. ... But he refused to be interrogated directly by the Americans or the British.
That alone should have raised red warning lights. It did not at Langley, Virginia (HQ of the CIA) but it did at Vauxhall Cross, London (HQ of MI6).
Every lie and invention traded by Curveball was believed in Germany and the USA. Bush told Blair who also swallowed it all. Just one man was sceptical, our own spy chief at the time Sir Richard Dearlove.
He asked the Yanks to run a camera plane over the chemical plant where Curveball had worked. Grudgingly they did so.
The Iraqi had claimed that from his director’s office he could see trucks with deadly chemical weapons on board leaving the yard.
But the photos showed there was a large wall between the director’s window and the main gate. He could not have seen what he said he saw. Our MI6 downgraded Curveball material to “single-source, unreliable”. In fact Curveball’s family was traced inside Iraq after the invasion.
They revealed he had come last in a chemical class of 60 and had become just a truck driver at that plant. And it made only agricultural pesticides. But here is the twist in the tail.
When Tony Blair says our intelligence assured him WMDs were thick on the ground he was lying. When parts of the media pass that claim on they are mistaken.
Our Secret Intelligence Service, long blackguarded by the Leftist, Blairadoring media as having purveyed fallacious information, in fact told Blair exactly what they thought of the quality of the Iraq information. Single-source, patchy, unreliable.
Only the CIA told poor Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, to go to the United Nations and humiliate himself with a speech that turned out to be complete rubbish.
Of his own accord Blair went to the Commons and told the Mother of Parliaments he had been shown “evidence beyond doubt”. He lied and he is still lying.
Iraq is today a failed state racked with crime and terrorism; Colin Powell still smarts with embarrassment; Tony Blair is a multi-millionaire and utterly failed peacemaker between Palestine and Israel; several hundred thousand Iraqis are dead, over and above the ones Saddam slaughtered; Dr David Kelly, who tried to expose the lies, was driven to suicide. ...
Lanchester's law: the advantage of large numbers against dictatorial minorities in a Civil War
As explained in an earlier post, weapons don't start wars: the classic example being the declaration of independence by unarmed Biafra in the Nigerian Civil War. Nor do weapons offer immediate success: they simply multiply the power of the people who use them by a large but not unlimited factor. If we take the figure of 11 megatons of TNT dropped in the form of say 100 kg bombs in Vietnam by B52 bombers, the equivalent megatonnage in terms of blast diffraction area damage for thermonuclear bombs of 1 megaton blast yield (2 megatons total nuclear yield) apiece is simply (11,000,000/0.1)*(0.1/1,000,000)2/3 = 2,370 thermonuclear weapons, with a total nuclear yield of 2,370 megatons of blast (50% blast energy partition), or 4,740 megatons total yield.
This is the key fact: dropping the equivalent of 4,740 thermonuclear megatons on Vietnam lost the war for America. The Vietcong took it, survived in the main, and fought back. You can argue that the "equivalent megatonnage" comparison calculation above omits the duplication of damaged areas by small conventional weapons hitting the same target repeatedly, but in a nuclear war with so many weapons the same effect will occur. Furthermore, the comparison omits the greater inefficiency of the nuclear bomb due to the cumulative depletion of blast energy in causing destruction as it travels outward (a consequence of energy conservation, observed by Lord Penney in accurate blast pressure determinations at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki). This is not important in small explosions where the blast pressure radii for building destruction are limited to single buildings in any case.
The Libyan situation is one in which large numbers of people have overrun numerically impressive weapons effects. What's happening is Lanchester's square law comes into play if you have a large crowd stoning machine gun emplacements from improvised cover. For hand to hand combat, the relative efficiency of one side is proportional to the number of people on that side, but when throwing rocks or firing guns, a large crowd is relatively more efficient since its losses are proportionately less than a small emplacement of highly-armed soldiers. Lanchester shows that if defeat is measured by relative losses (e.g., the percentage of the force which becomes casualties each day), the relative effectiveness of each side is proportional to the square of the number of people. Since dictatorships like Colonel Gaddafi's are based upon the control of a large majority by a small minority, the regime is a large disadvantage. If for example Gaddafi's side has support from 10% of the population, the other side has a 10 to 1 advantage in numbers, and Lanchester's square law makes this a 100 to 1 advantage in strength (defined by percentage casualty rate). Now this 100 to 1 advantage in strength may cancel out the advantage that Gaddafi has in terms of superior weapons (e.g., it reportedly used anti-aircraft guns against protestors). Lanchester Equations of War were developed during trench warfare in 1916 by Frederick Lanchester. The key principle is summarized as follows by Field Marshal Slim: "the more you use, the fewer you lose." This is essential for understanding how large numbers of poorly armed people can a smaller number of better armed professional soldiers a hard time. Lanchester's equations have been numerically validated by casualty statistics from Iwo Jima. (See also Paul K. Davis, Aggregation, Disaggregation, and the 3:1 Rules in Ground Combat, RAND report MR638, 1995.)
Update (27 Feb 2011):
Above: artist's impression of Colonel Gaddafi's regime resisting revolutionaries, by Dave Brown in The Independent. Three Secret-Highly-Intelligent-Targets (acronym: S.H.I.T.'s) of his regime were leaked to CNN by Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam: “We have plans A, B and C. Plan A is to live and die in Libya. Plan B is to live and die in Libya. Plan C is to live and die in Libya.” If forewarned is forearmed (praemonitus, praemunitus) is true, all is well. However, as with Churchill's warnings of the Nazi regime in the 1930s, being forewarned is not always quite enough to enable civilization to avoid a holocaust. You also need to take action. It's tricky doing a complete U-turn, when the British government has spent so much time and money trading arms for oil with Gaddafi. However, at some stage we may need to think about renaming the Ministry of Defence the "War Office" and starting to take action to prevent massacres before another 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or Singapore. Peace-keeping and regime change after atrocities have been committed can be too late, like waiting for gangland massacres before moving in. The UN has got more power than the 1930s League of Nations, but still suffers from the flaws of bureaucracy. By the time a consensus vote is achieved after endless discussions, it's too late to stop genocide. There's a large groupthink orthodoxy (called "If it works, don't fix it!") which states that society must always allow disasters to occur before changing the laws and regulations to stop future disasters. If Churchill had stopped Hitler in 1935, you can bet David Irving would be the mainstream historian today, not Sir Martin Gilbert. Too many people are too conservative and too prepared to back the status quo, to readily intimidated or impressed by "authority", and to ready to be coerced or duped into following fanatics like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and Gadaffi.
Irving L. Janis, "Victims of Groupthink," 1972; Houghton Mifflin Company; ISBN: 0-395-14044-7 (P. 197-204)
The groupthink syndrome: Review of the major symptoms
In order to test generalization about the conditions that increase the chances of groupthink, we must operationalize the concept of groupthink by describing the symptoms to which it refers. Eight main symptoms run through the case studies of historic fiascoes. Each symptom can be identified by a variety of indicators, derived from historical records, observer's accounts of conversations, and participants' memoirs. The eight symptoms of groupthink are:
1. an illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks;
2. collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions;
3. an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions;
4. stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes;
5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;
6. self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments;
7. a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent);
8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
When a policy-making group displays most or all of these symptoms, the members perform their collective tasks ineffectively and are likely to fail to attain their collective objectives. Although concurrence-seeking may contribute to maintaining morale after a defeat and to muddling through a crisis when prospects for a successful outcome look bleak, these positive effects are generally outweighed by the poor quality of the group's decision-making. My assumption is that the more frequently a group displays the symptoms, the worse will be the quality of its decisions. Even when some symptoms are absent, the others may be so pronounced that we can predict all the unfortunate consequences of groupthink.
Psychological functions of the eight symptoms
Concurrence-seeking and the various symptoms of groupthink to which it gives rise can be best understood as a mutual effort among the members of a group to maintain self-esteem, especially when they share responsibility for making vital decisions that pose threats of social disapproval and self-disapproval. The eight symptoms of groupthink form a coherent pattern if viewed in the context of this explanatory hypothesis. The symptoms may function in somewhat different ways to produce the same result.
A shared illusion of invulnerability and shared rationalizations can counteract unnerving feelings of personal inadequacy and pessimism about finding an adequate solution during a crisis. Even during noncrisis periods, whenever the members foresee great gains from taking a socially disapproved or unethical course of action, they seek some way of disregarding the threat of being found out and welcome the optimistic views of the members who argue for the attractive but risky course of action. (4) At such times, as well as during distressing crises, if the threat of failure is salient, the members are likely to convey to each other the attitude that "we needn't worry, everything will go our way." By pooling their intellectual resources to develop rationalizations, the members build up each other's confidence and feel reassured about unfamiliar risks, which, if taken seriously, would be dealt with by applying standard operating procedures to obtain additional information and to carry out careful planning.
The member's firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that "we are a wise and good group" inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. "Since our group's objectives are good," the members feel, "any means we decide to use must be good." This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group.
(4) Campbell, D. T., "Stereotypes and the perception of group differences." American psychologist, 1967, 22, 817-829.
· · · · · ·
Irving L. Janis (1918-1990) obtained a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Columbia University. He was a faculty member in the Psychology Department at Yale from 1947 to 1985, and was appointed Adjunct Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1986.