The effects of nuclear weapons. Credible nuclear deterrence, debunking "disarm or be annihilated". Realistic effects and credible nuclear weapon capabilities for deterring or stopping aggressive invasions and attacks which could escalate into major conventional or nuclear wars.

Monday, June 20, 2016

The infamy of Jeremy Corbyn's CND pseudoscientific Marxist propaganda rants against civil defence and peaceful deterrence of war

Above: a letter complaining of hatred for peace making, headlined in an Irish newspaper which points out that Clinton rushed into bombing Libya, a letter which wouldn't be deemed "politically correct" in a pseudo-democracy.  Three questions we need to ask are (1): "how many wars have been started by building walls to deter or end terrorism?", (2) "how many wars have been started by the ranting pseudo-liberals who claim to want peace but refuse to keep out the terrorists who cause wars?", and (3) "how many civil wars have been started by terrorists hiding behind multiculturalism?"

 We have placed a new compendium of civil defence evacuation proof data on Internet Archive, here.
1936 British Labour Party poster: using emotional blackmail to try to stop a peaceful arms race to deter war, against the genocidal Nazis.  "Pacifistm" = warmongering, a reversal of meaning of words called doublethink by Orwell in his book 1984: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength".  In other words, the propaganda machine of hatred covers up its evil by superficially reversing the meaning of words.  Those who use false weapons effects data and war hype to try to cater to racism and warmongering dictators are called "pacifists", those who try to shout down proven facts or delete facts to manipulate debates and misinform the world do so by falsely attacking those telling the truth as "ignorant", and those who endorse the end of liberty are promoted as "freedom lovers" in a convoluted, contrived sophistry (e.g., "freedom" from the "threat" of having protection against terrorists).

1938 British Labour Party's emotional anti-civil defence political propaganda: subtext is that you must surrender to racist, genocidal Nazis or face the horrors of having gas masks issued to kids for war.

But, gas masks were issued to kids, to be carried continually in cardboard boxes with string straps, and as a result, the kilotons of stockpiled Nazi tabun nerve gas were never loaded into bombers or into V1 cruise missiles or V2 rockets.

  Anti-civil defence lunacy still today claims that this ability of civil defence to negate a credible threat and enable a greater evil to be opposed, is either proof that "civil defence never worked" or is somehow proof that civil defence to make deterrence more credible is "immoral".

U.S. President John F. Kennedy worked in the American Embassy in London in 1939, and he wrote in his first ever book, Why England Slept, that public apathy in England towards civil defence encouraged fascist aggression by sending Hitler the message that Britain was unprepared to really threaten to stop the Nazis:

"In England we can see vividly where democracy failed. In the case of A.R.P. [Air Raid Precautions, later renamed civil defence], for example, the Government failed to get enough volunteers until after the Munich crisis had driven home the seriousness of the situation. But Germany had 12,000,000 members by 1936 ... We cannot tell anyone to keep out of our hemisphere unless our armaments and the people behind these armaments [emphasis by Kennedy] are prepared to back up the command ..."

For this reason, Kennedy refused in Why England Slept to place the blame for Nazi appeasement on the Prime Minister (Chamberlain). Kennedy quotes Herbert Morrison, the Labour Leader in 1939, describing as follows the severe Labour Party abuse he received about civil defence, the main objections being completely paranoid and to a certain extent also contradictory, namely that (1) civil defence is obviously so very effective it will produce a war psychology, intimidating Hitler, and that (2) civil defence is obviously so very ineffective that it is a complete fraud:

"At the beginning I got plenty of abuse from the irresponsibles because I said that Labour administrators must play their full part in Air Raid Precautions, which was denounced as a fraud and a plot of Ministers to create war psychology. For Labour local authorities to cooperate with state departments in this task was treachery. Anyway, no Air Raid Precautions could possibly be effective [the quacks alleged]."

In contrast, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Vice Chair and current Labour Party Leader Marxist Jeremy Corbyn's ill-informed, hate based anti civil defence rants (quoted and debunked here) stem from the following Leninist era vile/evil propaganda tactics, now lucidly debunked by the journalist James Delingpole:

James Delingpole, Tone: The Liberal-Left’s Codeword For ‘I Hate Free Speech’:

“The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee ... in times of tragedy like the murder of Jo Cox MP ... knows exactly what to write… It’s that old favourite ... “tone”. ... They are smearing their enemies without any requirement for burden of proof. “What did we say? Show us what we did that was evil or wrong.” “Oh, nothing specific. Just  our tone. It’s inflammatory.” ... what the left are saying here is that while it’s perfectly acceptable for them to make rabble-rousing comments ... not [for others to use exactly the same arguments against their sophistry] ... They are rewriting history — as the left so loves to do — by pretending that there was some golden age in which political discourse was polite and civilised and consensual. ... They are Closing Down The Argument. Since I wrote this piece today ... I have been inundated with tweets like these, essentially telling me that I’m not allowed to speak out ...”

This is censorship imposed by fashionable groupthink orthodoxy: the mainstream are ever the conservatives in their censorship of, and hatred, of non-orthodoxy when they have nothing better than dogmatic prejudice to defend themselves with against rational facts that are proved correct.  Stalinist propaganda ever claims that the mainstream are not conservatives, but are liberal revolutionaries; the opposite is always the truth.  The mainstream are camouflaged, self-deluded conservatives since they profit from status quo and fear progress.  The analogously reckless, unsubstantiated, emotional, ranting and irresponsible exploitation of tragedy in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by CND (Campaign for nuclear disarmament)'s Vice Chair, anti-civil defence bigo, and Labour Party Leader the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn is echoed by the exploitation of a recent murder:

James Delingpole, Project Grief: Remain’s Dirty Politicking Has Hit an All-Time Low:

“Here’s Alex Massie in the Spectator. Having generously acknowledged that ‘Nigel Farage isn’t responsible for Jo Cox’s murder. And nor is the Leave campaign,’ he then suggests that no, actually, they were: ‘But, still. Look. When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. …’ Let me precis for you, Alex, what you’re trying to say in your oh-so-subtle way: “Vote Leave. Vote Fascism. Vote Murder in the Streets.” ... do you genuinely, sincerely believe that Thomas Mair, the suspected gunman who killed Jo Cox is representative of the 50 percent or more of British people who believe that our country would be a better, freer, more prosperous, secure and democratically accountable place outside the EU? We know from a number of sources that Mair has had a long history of mental illness. ... and that ‘he has never expressed any views about Britain, or politics or racist tendencies.’ The half brother, Duane St Louis is himself mixed race and reports they ‘got on well’). ... Are we supposed to take it as evidence of some kind of ‘far-right’ terror campaign ... If you actually believe this then I’d say you’re not much less deranged and paranoid ... What you are doing is trying to exploit the horrible, random, senseless death ... the Remain campaign has been an almost relentlessly negative exercise in fear mongering and lies from a succession of figures from a democratically unaccountable elite whose primary mission is to make damn sure they remain a democratically unaccountable elite … David Cameron’s threat of a Third World War ... advocates of Remain are fighting so hard and so dirty to keep their tainted status quo intact. First came Project Fear; then Project Lies; now – the most cynical and exploitative of all – Project Grief.  But it would be an awful, awful shame if the most important democratic decision any Briton is going to face in his or her lifetime should come down not to the facts or the arguments or people’s instincts as to what is truly right for Britain – but simply to crass speculation as to what a madman may have intended when he killed an innocent working mother in the street.”

Thus, the terrorist tactics of the EU Remain propaganda shows where the fear mongers must seek to censor free speech and engineer a climate of hateful lies that inspire murders and violence, not factual debates that lead to progress, education and peace, and to party political or Marxist driven hate attacks on civil defence that could help to protect Syrians and others under attack instead of having them driven out of their own country by fear and violence without any effective protection.  Is that peace?

1. On 1 September 1939 as Germany invaded Poland, prior to declaring war on Germany we began the train based evacuation of one and a half million kids from target cities.

2. Despite the fact that German bombers could reach Britain faster than evacuation could occur, this did not provoke a "knockout blow" against the dispersing trains of evacuees.  On the contrary, by reducing British city vulnerability by a combination of evacuating vulnerable people and by issuing gas masks and shelters, bombing was delayed for nearly a year.

3. Evacuation again occurred during the actual Blitz air raids, which were equivalent, in damage and casualty risks (which don't scale linearly with energy yield), to four separate one megaton bombs dropped on London (London alone received about 18.8 kilotons in roughly 188 thousand separate 100 kg explosives in the 1940 Blitz: 188,000(10-7)2/3 = 4 thermonuclear weapons, each 1 megaton, a provable physics fact way beyond Jeremy Corbyn's CND and the popular media), in late 1940, and also during the V1 cruise missile and finally V2 IRBM attacks which peaked with over a million evacuated in September 1944 (see official history graph above, which is from: Richard Titmuss, Problems of social policy, 1950, page 356).

4. In Hiroshima, there was no evacuation, and the bureaucratic politics of issuing the air raid warning prevented it being sounded in time to get people into shelters which survived.  Most burns could have been avoided by duck and cover, because they were flash (profile) burns, not firestorm burns.  Also in Syria, most of the casualties in the civil war are occurring because there is no organized effective evacuation and sheltering: a lack of civil defence.  Similarly, we invaded Iraq with enormous casualties and expense because Tony Blair avoided the relatively cheap war-proof-tested civil defence corps solution which his predecessor Clement Attlee used in 1949 in response to the Russian nuclear threat.  It would have been cheaper and safer to restart the civil defence corps against the hyped up threat of Saddam's sarin nerve gas in Scud missiles.  But Tony Blair had been deluded as a CND member by propaganda that civil defence is a fraud, and ignored civil defence as a credible alternative to a costly war.  The blame is with anti-civil defence CND.

5. Contrary to Fred Kaplan's and CND's anti-civil defence evacuation ranting, the protected second strike nuclear deterrent prevents an aggressor from gaining by a first strike, so evacuation remains practical.  As in 1939, where we evacuated kids from London and other cities in Operation Pied Piper on 1 September before declaring war on 3 September, city evacuation is not a race against enemy bombers or V1/V2/ICBM missiles which arrive in a matter of minutes.

In any case, the British Civil Defence Corps 1957 publication Radioactive fallout: provisional scheme of public control planned evacuation of heavy fallout "Z Zone" areas downwind after the explosions not before them (where the dose rate is above 1000 R/hr at 1 hour after burst, or 10 R/hr at 48 hours, allowing for the correct decay rate).  Likewise, in WWII plans were made to evacuate areas contaminated with slowly-evaporating mustard gas, and where the houses were totally destroyed by heavy bombing (while people were in shelters).  Hence, the speed of a missile is irrelevant, and does not "ridicule" evacuation plans. (CND attacks on evacuation planning often end with the sneer that the traffic jams on the roads out of any city on a Friday afternoon before a Bank Holiday weekend somehow debunk evacuation planning.  On the contrary, they prove that huge numbers do migrate regularly without any coordination or planning, and in a coordinated, properly planned for emergency situation, broken down or crashed vehicles can easily be shunted to the sides of major roads to clear major congestion bottlenecks and save lives.)

6. The Jeremy Corbyn style of politically biased, fanatically ignorance based propaganda to "shut down the argument" just proves where he can't defend himself with rational truth.  We should be spreading our wartime proved civil defence information and help to all war zones to avert the refugee crises, instead of using pseudo "socialist" hate attacks on the truth from deluded folks who are effectively warmongers, since they are against credible deterrence (a stance which has led to the wars) and their hate-propaganda supports racist terrorists.

Billeting research, for allocating evacuees to homes or communal shelters outside potential target city areas, is done prior to evacuation.  These civil defence countermeasures are useful for both conventional and nuclear war. 

Above: Los Angeles Times, 7 August 1945, confuses energy release with damaging power (which actually scales up more slowly than energy, so that 18.8 kilotons in roughly 188 thousand separate 100 kg explosives in the 1940 Blitz: 188,000(10-7)2/3 = 4 thermonuclear weapons, each 1 megaton (a provable physics fact way beyond Jeremy Corbyn's CND and the popular media), and calls Japanese nuclear victims "Nips" despite claiming to call for "Equal Rights" in its headpiece logo, a contradiction that says more about the quality of consistency and fact checking in such self proclaimed moral newspapers than it does about nuclear weapons for deterring invasions and war (click image for larger view).  Such ignorant propaganda and racist language misinformed the world, and went unchecked because of "peace propaganda" deceptions.

Above: the 8 August 1945 London Daily Mirror falsely claimed that "Hiroshima disappeared in a mushroom of cloud", crass anti-civil defense, totally dishonest hucksterism; in fact the wooden buildings only burned down due to overturned charcoal braziers amid paper screens, in fires that peaked in intensity 2-3 hours after the attack, while inside concrete buildings near ground zero the fires were extinguished with water buckets.  This ineptitude of the heat and blast pressure from fission weapons to make entire cities vanish became clear with hydrogen bomb research, where the extremely brief duration and volume of the intense pressures and temperatures seriously limit the amount of compression and heating for fusion reactions, even when the fusion material is placed in a shared case with a fission bomb.  It is simply dishonest to claim that Hiroshima disappeared in a mushroom cloud.  I placed the declassified USSBS report on the Hiroshima firestorm cause (obsolete charcoal stoves in obsolete wooden slums) on Internet Archive, free for all to read, in 2013, three years ago.  See if you find it discussed anywhere objectively without ranting emotional bigotry, on any Nuclear Secrecy blog run by by any of Harvard's dishonest, genocidal, fact censoring abusive liars, who delete truthful criticisms expressed politely!

Vague utopian dreams of peaceful unity have cost millions of lives and ruined whole economies 

"The bodies had piled up with each new vision of European unity: 184,000 in the Franco-Prussian war, 18 million in the First World War, 40 million in the Second World War.  Grand plans and charisma had almost extinguished a continent. ... The key was Jean Monnet, a small, unprepossessing, stocky French official ... Monnet's contribution was a vision ... He let the fear of conflict drive European unity and left its goal vague ... Monnet had worked in the disastrous League of Nations after the First World War ..."

- Mark Leonard, Why Europe will run the 21st century, Fourth Estate, London, 2005, pp. 9-10 (emphasis added).

Leonard's book is a biased sales pitch for the European Union, ignoring the fact that its vague goal (which he sees as genius) allows its protection racket to create wars in Africa, the Ukraine and the Middle East.  Indeed, the European Union is allowing the USSR's disastrous centralised economy to destabilise the world, causing the refugee crisis and millions of unnecessary deaths in conflicts driven by poverty:  The EU has caused the African economic crisis that has become a migrant flow through Libya.  The EU is causing the migrant crisis by a protection racket of subsidies and trade regulations, keeping Africa desperately poor, according to James Cleverly:  Mrs Merkel invited a million refugees to pay through the nose to risk their lives in overcrowded boats run by human traffickers, causing many people to drown.

Leonard then titles Chapter 3: "Europe's Weapon is the Law".  Criminals and criminal states break laws.  Nobody human can even remember all the regulatory laws the EU passes every year, let alone afford trial cases to ensure it is interpreting them "correctly", so immediately it is absurd: the whole point of the ten commandments was that people could know and remember the law.  Once law making becomes a professional industry, laws profit the lawyers and the rich who can afford the expense of using the law effectively.  Laws are continually being broken,and prisons are always overcrowded.  International laws have repeatedly proved worthless unless the root causes are addressed and invasions are prevented or stopped by credible deterrence, which means enforcement of justice.  Weapons inspections in Iraq continually failed to produce credible confidence, leading to war.  Anyone who believes in millions of rules, regulations and laws is a charlatan; anyone who believes in laws without enforcement is criminal.  Only monolithic big business can afford immense legal teams to study the laws and they are the ones who wield them effectively to silence their opponents, which is why they support the EU,  along with expensive patent law, and other methods to subdue small competitors who cannot afford lawyers.  Rules and laws for peacekeeping backfire:

"In July 1995, what was supposed to be a United Nations Safe Area became a mass grave. While the 'blue helmets' looked on powerlessly, the Bosnian Serb army ... murdered over seven thousand [in Srebrenica, over a 5 day period] ... The European obsession with rules was cynically manipulated by the Serbs, who scrupulously avoided firing at any UN troops when the overran the town.  This mean that, under the UN's rules of engagement, European soldiers were not authorized to shoot at the Serbs, or respond ..."

- Mark Leonard, Why Europe will run the 21st century, Fourth Estate, London, 2005, pp. 57-58 (emphasis added).

You find a similar manipulation of the laws by all criminals.  But the real disaster for Mark Leonard's 2005 book Why Europe will run the 21st century, is his description of how Georgia avoided war in 2003 by using a European Union-style peaceful revolution to replace pro-Russian hardliner Eduard Shevardnadze with American-educated pro-European Union Mikhail Saakashvili:

"Roses became the symbol of a revolution that swept through Georgia in November 2003. ... when the protesting students handed their roses to the soldiers. ... The leader of the revolution, Mikhail Saakashvili ... was elected by a landslide: securing more than 96 percent of the vote.  His promise to the people of Georgia was to bring the country into the European mainstream: '... The EU should welcome us ...'  A year later their neighbours in Ukraine launched an 'Orange Revolution' in similar circumstances, with the reformist leader Viktor Yushchenko basing his campaign on the promise of a European future. ... Throughout the Arab world, the media buzzed with envy ... Sa'ad Mahyew wrote in the UAE daily Al-Khaleej: 'Why aren't Arab societies experiencing revolutions similar? ... Why has the Arab region still not spouted democratic and liberal movements offering the Arab peoples an alternative to the existing variety of despotism and authoritarian regimes?' "

- Mark Leonard, Why Europe will run the 21st century, Fourth Estate, London, 2005, pp. 101-102.

Ever since Leonard's utopian pro-European Union brainwashing book was published in 2005, everything he wrote about the European Union's move toward Georgia, Ukraine and also the crises of civil wars in Arab countries, have debunked his rant:

1. The peaceful "rose revolution" of 2003 Georgia gave way to the 2008 Russian-Georgia war,

2. the Ukrainian peaceful "Orange Revolution" gave way to an ongoing Russian invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, while

3. the efforts to bring about peaceful democratic revolutions in bad Arabic dictatorships such as Libya and Syria caused ongoing civil wars, displacing millions of refugees into Europe.

Here is the proof that the methods, lawyer culture and ideals of the European Union bring disaster.  The main problem is the use of taboos to ban debates on EU methodology, a very bad groupthink agenda.  All laws in Europe are proposed not by the democratically elected European Union (which merely has a choice of whether to rubber stamp law), but in the unelected, secretive, bureaucratic European Commission:

“Yes, the Commission wants to increase its powers. Yes, it is a non-elected body and I do not want the Commission to increase its powers at the expense of the House, so of course we differ. The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.”

- Prime Minister Thatcher, 30 October 1990, House of Commons, 1990, column 873.

Thatcher was ousted a few weeks later by pro-EU rivals on this issue, and John Major led Britain into the disastrous Maastricht Treaty, leading to a single European currency (the Euro) and thus to virtual bankrupcy for the Greek, Spanish, Irish and Portugese economies, and leading in 1993 to Delors' European Union as a democratic smokescreen for the European Commission, a USSR style secretive, bureaucratic, Polituburo.  This is not a "United States of Europe": as for the Third Reich or for the USSR, the citizens of the European Union don't elect any law instigators (the European Commission members who secretly propose laws), and they don't have a vote for the president.  There is simply no comparison between the EU to the USA.

The bureaucratic zealots of the EU, like their friend Mark Leonard and also Marxists disguised as CND peace leaders, stand in the way of the measures needed to resolve the world's problems.  They block discussions, they block democracy, and they block progress of humanity itself.  Their actions lead to many wars costing millions of lives and displacing missions of refugees.  They have no interest in the humanity of providing effective civil defence to save lives in war zones, and to the credible deterrence of invasions.  Their groupthink utopia, which has repeatedly failed, blinds them to reality of Cold War proved credible deterrence, the tactical nuclear weapons that really stop invasions and drive dictators to serious peace talks.

Does the EU lead to harmony, security, and peace?

Brenda Power wrote about senseless murders in Israel being exploited by the mainstream media, in the Irish Daily Mail, 14 June 2016, page 14:

“I was in a restaurant in Tel Aviv last Wednesday night as terrorists opened fire on diners in an open-air café … Four people were shot dead … On CNN the next morning, an Israeli spokesman got a tough time from the presenter … If only the state showed more humanity and restraint towards those enemies whose avowed aim is the complete destruction of the entire Israeli nation, ran the subtext, these folks mightn’t feel the need to murder innocent civilians … As if the sort of people who walk into crowded bars or nightclubs or concert halls or football stadiums and shoot dead blameless strangers usually tend to be amenable to logic, or to view restraint as anything other than craven weakness.”

The Paris murderers last year killed 80 in the Bataclan theatre alone, facilitated by the EU’s abolishment of border security between Belgium and France.  Hypocritically, those murders were not used in any Leave EU arguments, which instead tactfully focus on the house price hikes caused by immigration and racist economic harm done to Africa by EU trade subsidies to French farmers that undercut Africa, making it poor and vulnerable to war and violence. But the tragic murder of Jo Cox was immediately used by Neil Coyle MP who claimed the insane murder proved somehow that the people who want to Vote Leave are “very dangerous,” and German Chancellor Angela Merkel blamed the insane murder on imaginary Vote Leave “exaggerations and radicalisation.” 

Their aim is to gain political advantage out of an evil, insane act of murder, not to use justifiable, logical reasoning or debate.  In an article (above) in the 19 June 2016 Sunday Express, the leader of Vote Remain in EU, the Prime Minister David Cameron, used Jo Cox's murder as an argument to stay in the EU, despite the EU's anti-democracy hate attacks on free speech and on free trade with Africa.  The murderer of Jo Cox reportedly had been released from a mental hospital, suffering from insanity.  But even if the murder was "politically motivated", then you have to ask if the dishonest, anti-democracy hate agenda from EU propaganda is more likely to drive a hate crime, than calm reasoning using the following truthful facts:
James Cleverly, MP.  "Our farmers are being taxed to subsidise their competitors to keep African farmers in poverty.  Whichever way you look at it, from an African farmers point of view, or from a British farmers point of view, it's indefensible."

EU evil hatred of civilization

1. A key humanitarian positive to leaving the inhuman, hateful racist EU devastation of Africa, where massive British subsidies to other EU farmers damage UK farmers and also undercut African competitors, causing a whole continent to remain poor, has been clearly explained by James Cleverly MP, whose family is from Africa.

2. Switzerland isn't in the EU, but exports more to it than the UK!  In any case, only 6% of UK businesses export anything to the EU, and mostly those are big businesses which can afford the bureaucracy of EU regulations, but 100% of UK businesses are bogged down with EU regulations.  We have almost £70 billion trade deficit with the EU, so we are subsidising the 6% of firms who export to the EU by paying about £160 million a day after the rebate.  The massive EU immigration has been responsible for housing price rises, by simple supply-and-demand price law. Also, if you are an American, you are banned from moving to the UK unless you fit a long list of criteria, which do not apply if you are from elsewhere in the EU!   Is this not a nasty piece of inequality and discrimination against non-EU citizens? It’s bias against accepting American, Australian, Canadian immigrants, with family here, due to EU-caused constraints.

3. Then there is the trade deals pro-EU argument.  Due to the EU interference, we don’t have trade agreements now with Australia, New Zealand, USA, India, China, or Brazil. The EU doesn’t have deals with these countries due to the problems in getting the 28 member states to agree.  Nevertheless, we do business with all these countries despite not having formal trade agreements.  We can still import and export, paying duty as required.  The pro-EU propaganda falsely claims EU trade agreements are vital!

4. Finally, the EU President and the EC law makers are not elected by the citizens of Europe, only the EU which votes on whether to accept them or not (if not, they can be reformulated and put back up for a vote next week).  The elected EU is deliberately prevented from formulating laws, which with 28 countries locked in arguments would result in nothing being concluded (so law formulation is done by the unelected EC).  You need an electron microscope to search for any trace of genuine democracy.  In fact, there were elections in the USSR, which had a very similar smoke-and-mirrors set up!

Hateful racists or selfish bigots who don't care about improving the world, are issuing ignorant propaganda for “Remain in EU” because they hate giving business to Africans. James Cleverly, MP, "How the EU's Common Agricultural Policy is making African farmers poorer", 27 April 2016: 

"The EU’s protectionist attitudes, particularly in food, keeps poor African farmers poor. ... The Common Agricultural Policy subsidizes continental European farmers to produce food in quantities that we cannot eat. Those heavily subsidised surpluses completely distort African and other markets.  They undercut the prices of domestically produced food.  They make it impossible for impoverished African farmers to compete, impossible for them to make a sustainable living." 

In 2014 Britain 4.6 billion pounds into the Common Agricultural Policy but only got 2.9 billion back, James Cleverly MP argues: 

"Our farmers are being taxed to subsidise their competitors to keep African farmers in poverty.  Whichever way you look at it, from an African farmers point of view, or from a British farmers point of view, it's indefensible." -
Although it is claimed by Remain in EU that most foreign sourced vital UK NHS nurses come from the EU, most do NOT!

Leo McKinstry exposes the Remain in EU propaganda hypocrisy in print: "After every Islamist incident, progressives warn against demonising the entire Muslim population, yet some of the Remainers are indulging in the the same sweeping assumptions about the entire leave campaign." (Daily Express, 20 June 2016, page 14):

Above: Brenda Power debunks journalistic hypocrisy in the Irish Daily Mail, 14 June 201, page 14: CNN TV channel blames the murders of innocent Israelis on the victims, claiming it is justified on the account of Israeli occupation of Arab Palestinian land.

This kind of journalistic propaganda resonates and is seen as more obviously a fraud in Ireland, on account of the past experience with IRA terrorism propaganda.  In a sense, Protestant and Catholic divisions in Northern Ireland are analogous to say the Shia and Sunni divisions in Syria (or other countries in a state of emergency).  The cause of these wars is religious-ethnic multiculturalism, not multiple races (racism is another subject, a fact much to the horror of Marxists who want to mix it in the stew to win their argument by closing down the argument).  The multi-cultures differ in whether, for instance, they want to be a part of Russia, or part of the United Kingdom, or separate and have independence.  The minority part then fails to gain influence on this debate democratically, simply because it has fewer voters.  Eventually, a fraction of the minority feel so oppressed and driven out of democratic debates simply because they don't have enough voters, that they begin fighting or bombing to draw attention to their cause.  The correct way to deal with this within democracy is to ensure that all minorities do have a say, by some power sharing coalition like the Northern Ireland Executive with proportional representation.  If this fails in extremely intractable cases, it is necessary to break up the country along ethnic lines, creating regional states as in the United Kingdom, where Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own regional assemblies.

Above: Simon Campbell's lucid letter in 6 June 2016 Irish Daily Mail, page 35, is precisely the kind of thing censored by the BBC, the Guardian paper, and all the "elitist" editor bigots of the UK's pseudo-journalism:

“As a young man, I read John Hersey’s searing account, Hiroshima, and as a result supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) for many years.  But I have come to realise that the nuclear attack saved more Japanese lives than it cost – due to the need otherwise to invade their fanatically defended homeland.  Every step would have been over a Japanese and an Allied serviceman’s body.  An atom bomb on Berlin in 1940 would have saved tens of millions of lives on battlefields and in Nazi death camps. Ghastly, but true.”

Er, maybe, but seeing that London wasn't defeated by the Blitz which has a properly scaled equivalent megatonnage of four separate one megaton thermonuclear weapons, I doubt that bombing Berlin would in 1940 would have ended the war with a single weapon; more useful would have been neutron bombs used tactically to credibly stop and then deter Nazi tanks from invading France and other countries.

Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, University of Missouri Press, 1964 (based on Teller's Brick lectures at the University of Missouri, 8-9 April 1963), Chapter I, "The Noble Lie", at pages 13-18:
"In Plato's Republic ... it is proposed that all power should be exercised by a small number of guardians ... philosopher kings.  Plato calls them guardians.  Do they not bear some resemblance to our idea of a scientist? I have read the Republic carefully ... Let us look at some passages [from the Davies and Vaughan 1921 Macmillan translation] ... Censorship is not practised in a democratic country.  Plato's Republic seems to resemble a dictatorship.  And here comes a passage, which to me is particularly interesting [iii, 389]: 'To the rulers of the state ... it belongs of right to use falsehood, to deceive, either enemies or their own citizens, for the good of the state: and no one else may meddle with this privilege.'  ... 
"The suggestion of using falsehood for the good of the state, the very thing which has been designed as the 'Nobel Lie' ... [Plato, Republic, iii, 414:] 'seasonable falsehoods ... may bring even the rulers themselves, if possible, to believe it...'  It is a remarkable thing, to lie so effectively that you believe it yourself ... Plato holds democracy in low esteem.  There is a very serious point in all of this.  If, indeed, we delegate authority over essential things to a small body of men, we have betrayed the simplest principles of democracy. Any small governing group, whether they be scientists or philosophers, kings or generals, communists or fascists, aristocrats or even gangsters, will govern in an autocratic manner.  This is a basic fact. 
"Firm opposition to autocracy, to the government of the few, is the basic tenet of democracy. ... rule by a minority is very good for that minority.  For the majority it is no so good ... in a democracy, we say that powers should be divided, and the ultimate power must belong to the people. ... It is possible for the educated layman to distinguish correct statements from nonsense, once the facts are stated, explained, and discussed. ... if a weapon is perfected, its effects, its consequences, are easily understood and explained.
"This understanding and explanation is to some extent impeded by our practice of secrecy.  Sometimes I suspect that the secrecy itself is due to a public refusal of responsibility.  The common man seems ready to abdicate his democratic responsibility [dating, socialising, sports, TV, fiction, exercise, holidays take up time, and are more pleasurable for some than studying the hard facts of deterrence to make the world a more peaceful, free place] ... politics calls for feeling and compromise - things that the scientist in his narrow field has no occasion to practice. ... in the ever-changing world of human relations he often is a child. ... 
"Scientists have all too frequently given wrong advice in the past. Society might turn against them and may accuse them not only of misjudgement but, indeed, of conspiracy with dictatorial intentions. ... Faraday explained his revolutionary experiments and theories in simple lectures, aimed at teenagers.  This style is going out of practice. ... Science is atomized, and each ... living in his own ivory tower.  We ... notice that nobody understands us but ourselves. ... Let us not expect too much from scientific objectivity.  Let us be content if the scientist attempts to be honest.  Let us not assume that he is unprejudiced.  But let us require that he name his prejudices.  Free debate between prejudiced advocates is a tortuous road toward truth.  But it has proved more reliable than any straight doctrine."

I'm just back from two weeks on a farm in rural Ireland, away from the British TV propaganda. The local Irish TV stations have reporters and anchorpersons who behave as non-partisan, non-judgemental, objective journalists, a skill I trained in over twenty years ago.  British TV journalists who rise to dominant positions are often smug, conceited, judgemental haters of anyone who has facts or interpretations of facts which differ from their own.  This arrogant if not abusive bigotry is passed off as "personality", "charm" and "charisma", particularly in areas where the poorly pigmented natives are now in the minority and racism therefore takes the form of hatred towards anyone with red hair and freckles, purely based prejudice against those who lack adequate skin melatonin.  It was refreshing therefore to discover best selling author and journalist Frederick Forsyth's article explaining precisely and honestly the reasons behind this intolerance:

"Like so many grand schemes ... the concept of the total unification of Europe began as a noble dream. There was nothing inhumane about Jean Monnet ... Monnet analysed what had gone wrong and became obsessed by one single fact.  The German people had actually voted the Austrian demagogue into the office of chancellor. ... The continent of Europe ... must be unified into one huge superstate. ... There could be no war between provinces, so war would be banished.  For a man who had witnessed the Spanish Civil War, that was an odd conclusion, but he came to it. ... Instead, there would be a new system: government by an enlightened elite of bureaucrats.  The hoi polloi (you and me) were simply too dim, too emotional, too educated to be safely allowed to choose their governments. ... Let me quote from what he wrote: 'Europe's nations should be guided towards the Super-state without their people's understanding what is happening.  This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose ...' Hence the deliberate recourse to government by deception. ...

"Study the remain campaign ... pillars of the establishment ... the 1960s was a bad period for Britain. The empire was gone. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were far away, thinly populated and no market for the torrent of manufactured goods we needed to export.  The rest of the former empire was African, Asian, and Caribbean - also poor.  Our product was either shoddy, over-priced or late. ... The prospects looked bleak ... For 19 years, (1973 to 1992, including the confirmatory referendum of 1975 ...) we stayed uncomplainingly in the Common Market ... The same voices that urge us today to remain with the EU badgered ... to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, precursor of the Euro.  It was an unmitigated disaster [handing over control of your currency to a third party takes away your ability to manage your economy, effectively preventing you from printing or withdrawing money for controlling inflation, overspending, etc.].

"When we left it under John Major in 1992, it has cost us hundreds of billions [if we had remained and joined the Euro, with our £1.7 trillion national debt we could be in exactly the disaster of ruined Greece today, which has a similar amount of debt per person].  Major also sucked us into the Maastrict Treaty without a vote.  ... With Maastrict [which gave ultimate political power to the EU, with the unelected EC members secretly making the laws and the elected EU merely having a "choice" in voting on them in fast succession, the 28 member states being mostly anti-British former enemies so that Britain's "votes" are diluted into insignificance and get nothing done], huge tracts of British sovereignty transferred from London to Brussels. ... Democracy versus non-elective [European Commission law proposing] bureaucracy ... Our democracy ... took centuries of struggle to create and from 1940 to 1945 terrible sacrifices to defend ...

"Treaty of Rome, 1957: European Economic Community (EEC) with the stated aim of achieving 'ever closer union'. ... Merger Treaty, 1965: ... European Council and the European Commission.

"Britain joined the EEC, 1973: This decision was confirmed in a referendum held in 1975

"Maastrict Treaty, 1992: Formally created the European Union ... the euro, for a common defence and foreign affairs policy and ... home affairs.

"Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997: ... preparing the EU to admit a number of new member states [leading over the following years to the civil wars in the former members of the USSR]

"Lisbon Treaty, 2007: ... permanent president [unelected by the citizens of the EU] of the European Council, a new high representative for foreign affairs [unelected former British CND anti-neutron bomb bigot, Baroness Cathy Ashton, who triggered the Ukrainian war and invasion by her lifelong hate attacks on freedom of speech, credible nuclear deterrence, civil defence, freedom, humanity and democracy itself], and an EU diplomatic service [in the 1930s League of Nations, or Neville Chamberlain style of ignorant peace-in-our-time world government ranting and effectual warmongering through ignorant hate attacks on Churchill style honesty, while hidden by camouflage, under a cloak of freshly slaughtered peace doves feathers].  [The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU's European Court of Justice the authority to dictate laws controlling every aspect of British life.]"

- Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 13 June 2016, pages 20-21.

Above: European Union undemocratic policies like those of the USSR create not peace, hope and love, but instead division, hatred, Nazi power, violence and war (Dominic Midgeley, Daily Express, 1 June 2016, page 19).  Norbert Hofer's straight arm salute party in Hitler's birth country, Austria, gained 4,640,000 votes in last month's Presidential election, missing out on the Presidency of Austria by just 31,000 votes, after the EU open borders policy allowed terrorist carnage in Paris and Belgium last year amid the influx of a million war hardened immigrants who had the funds to pay to leave refugee camps and sail on leaky boats to Europe.  Germany's far right AfD (Alternative for Germany) is led by Frauke Petry who gained party leadership after 1.1 million asylum seekers flooded Germany last year.  In February, Petry announced a cooperation pact with Austria.  In EU bankrupted Greece, the openly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party now has 18 MPs making it the third largest party in September 2015 elections.  In France, Switzerland, Hungary, Denmark, and Finland, the far-right parties won 14%, 29%, 21%, 21% and and 18% of the vote, respectively, in their most recent elections.  In France, the National Front's leader Marine Le Pen was charged with inciting racial hatred in October 2015 after comparing recent immigrants to the Nazis in WWII, but she was acquitted and after the Paris attacks she won 6,800,000 votes in December's regional elections.  Debunking EU propaganda that terrorist attacks on democracy unifies people, reduces division and hatred!

The truth is, last year (2015), the UK's net contribution for EU membership was £8.5 billion, despite the fact we buy almost £70 billion more of goods from other EU states than they buy from us.  We're paying them to help rack up further our nearly £ two trillion national debt, due to the trade deficit, in which they buy fewer British goods than we buy from them.  This fact is taboo!  The economic scare mongers always ignore it.

The EU Council's unelected President Donald Tusk instead preached a hate attack on freedom on 13 June 2016, stating that if Britain regained its freedom, this could trigger the "destruction of Western political civilization". He also announced in the newspaper Bild:

"As a historian, I fear that Brexit [British exit from EU political control, not the same thing as a severing of economic trade!] could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU, but also of the Western political civilization in its entirety."

However, Tusk's ignorant warped historical self-deception and egotistic hate attack to terrorise voters with fear and negativity on the consequences of gaining freedom, was debunked by the calm, positive Hindi MP, Priti Patel: "This is extraordinary language from the EU President, and serves only to reveal his own desperation."

Ross Clark has also shown how any tragedy is dishonestly manipulated by ranting, emotional, egotists who refuse to engage in honest, rational, factual discussions when the facts don't suit their hate agenda against free speech:

"[Guardian writer] Owen Jones stormed off Sky News at what he saw as a failure of the presenter and his co-guest to recognise the Orlando attack [by Islamic State devotee, Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 people] as first and foremost a homophobic hate crime ... he had spoken of allegiance to Islamic State.  It had led the FBI to interview him in 2013 and 2015 ... Owen Jones suffered his temper tantrum because of the contradictions in his brand of Left-wing thought ... in his little world, minorities don't attack each other.  Rather, they are united in their shared struggle ... In reality, no such united front exists.  Many minorities, which the Left tries to claim as its own, are utterly at odds with each other's values. ... Trump's popularity stems from his preparedness to address Islamic terrorism head-on, while other politicians pussy-foot around the issue."

- Ross Clark, Daily Express, 14 June 2016, page 12.

You might not agree with this interpretation of the facts, but do you think it should be censored out as "taboo" in order to have a contrived, censored, "sanitized" debate in which only bigots with a dishonest agenda of hatred towards reality are allowed to publish?  Yesterday, Jo Cox MP, a lifelong pro-EU advocate who worked in the European Parliament for the Kinnock family twenty years ago, was shot dead by nutter who reportedly shouted "Britain First!"  Violence and assassinations throughout history follows censorship and elitist abuse of freedom by haters of real debate, those bigoted fighting people who label freedom lovers, war deterrence lovers, and border defending lovers dishonestly as "haters", simply because they lack the ability or humanity to recognise that there are justifiable interpretations of the full facts which differ from their own ranting prejudice.  They cannot grasp that German immigration into Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland of almost 4 million by September 1938, gave Hitler his excuse for invasion and extermination in "peaceful" concentration camps.  They cannot grasp that fine words to censor honest debates lead to hell.

THE RELUCTANT REVOLUTIONARY, by Dr Edward Teller, published by University of Missouri Press, 1964.

Hydrogen bomb and human rights developer Edward Teller the Great addresses the European Union's aims of peace and unity in his great 1964 book, The Reluctant Revolutionary.  Look at what Teller actually has to say (Richard Rhodes in his books on nuclear weapons history, simply ignores Teller's political writings, and uses hate attacks, trying to make out Teller is an alien by calling him "ET" after a film alien character!):

"Indeed the Common Market in Europe is in itself a miracle.  That a few years after a devastating war the economic well-being of the European countries should have scaled new heights is good, almost incredibly good, news [however it was capitalism plus the Marshall aid program that funded the rebuilding of Western Europe, thanks to Uncle Sam, which is why the non-Marshall aid states of the socialised, monolithic, bankrupt Warsaw Pact on the other side of the Iron Curtain remained stagnant despite mutual trade laws].  But there is something that is better.  And this is that progress was achieved by forgetting about old, conservative institutions; by adopting modern procedures, many of them, incidentally, imported straight from the United States [capitalism, free, real democracy]. ... why should it not be possible to set up a loose but effective Federal Union embracing all of the advanced free democracies?

"The Federal Union of the advanced democracies can become the secure center from which freedom and abundance may spread. ... The Industrial Revolution, with all its turbulence, with all its upsetting problems, is engulfing the whole of the earth.  And whoever will be able to make sure that the Africans and the Asians and the South Americans can eat, that these people can be saved from their present miseries, from their wretched conditions not worthy of a human being - whoever can do that, by his acts and by his examples [Teller's example of being politically crucified for deterring world war, despite abusive propaganda against him], will be able to help to form the political ideas ... indeed, if we can set our house in order, if we can win over to the ways of freedom - to their own way of freedom - those countries that have nothing but a feudal or a tribal tradition [the differences between the Sunni and Shia sects in Islamic countries, for example], then, indeed, we can confront the Communists with a new situation.

"Because then they will not be the ones with a plan and we will no longer be floundering without aim or purpose.  We shall then face them, not with a plan, but with an accomplishment which is better than any plan.  Even then, it will not be easy to introduce freedom and respect for the individual in those parts of the world where these ideas never have yet taken root; even then, it will be necessary to use all our patience to find a peaceful and acceptable solution [for one example, the Protestant versus Catholic factions quarrel with terrorist violence over political matters in Northern Ireland, where the Catholic minority was prior to 1998 kept entirely out of power by the first past the post voting system; the current agreement that was signed up on 10 April 1998 was the "mandatory coalition" power sharing system, where minorities are not excluded simply for being a minority, but are instead given a say in the Northern Ireland Executive] ...

"... there is one contemporary writer for whom I have deep respect.  He is Arnold Toynbee.  You are familiar with his theory, with his ideas of development, of sudden revolutionary heroic efforts in which men arduously try to ascend from one platform to the next, from one state of human society to a higher one.  Sometimes the ascent fails; sometimes it ends in disaster.  The development never takes place without a dangerous, exacting, deadly challenge.  In a way we cannot complain.  The challenge is there.  We may fail, but I hope it will not be said about us that we have not tried."

- Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, The Paul Anthony Brick Lectures, University of Missouri Press, 1964, pp. 69-71.

Teller writes there that he was also inspired by Nelson Rockefeller's 1962 lectures, published in his book, The Future of Federalism. What we do need for peace is in Europe the kind of truly democratic, freedom based union present in the United States of America, not the USSR's resurrection in the secretive, unelected European Commission executive, nor the unelected President of Europe; that way of imposing leaderships undemocratically always leads to hatred, violence and war:

"The Russians use the method of power, conquest, coercion.  They are indeed the heirs of Genghis Khan ... This ancient dishonorable art has been developed by the Communists to a new level of perfection and efficiency. ... We want to find a way of cooperation and equality between the yellow, the brown, the black and the white races.  We want to find a peaceful way in which feudal and tribal societies can adapt themselves ... We should establish world order by the slow and safe process of evolution, but we don't have the time.  It must be done by a revolution.  And so I am a revolutionary, and a most reluctant one. ... Perhaps the slow, the comfortable, the logical transition to a world order never can be executed.  Perhaps the only way to fly, is to fly fast."

- Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, The Paul Anthony Brick Lectures, University of Missouri Press, 1964, pp. 66-68.

Teller then discusses Rockefeller's Future of Federalism and formulates his plan for freedom, which we quoted from earlier.  Teller also explains that in a totalitarian society, the paranoia of the leadership causes every trifle to be centrally controlled for fear merely of losing control and being seen to permit liberal freedoms, thus stifling innovation as Plato feared:

"The introduction of a new kind of music must be shunned as imperilling the whole state, since styles of music are never disturbed without affecting the most important political institutions."

- Plato, The Republic (Davies and Vaughan translators, Macmillan, London, 1921, iii, 386).

Teller repeatedly points out the analogy between the terror campaigns of Genghis Khan and Russia, remarking on page 60 of The Reluctant Revolutionary:

"It is a remarkable historical fact that the extent of Communist rule today [in the Cold War] is almost the same as the extent of the penetration of the hordes of Genghis Khan.  In those countries, for almost 800 years, freedom of thought did not exist ... freedom of discussion was stamped out."

With Reagan's 1980s mastery of credible tactical nuclear deterrence of Russian invasions in Europe, the Cold War was ended quicker by realistic discussions, inspired by strength (not by weakness which leads to war and coercion in negotiations, as in the 1930s handshakes between Western leaders and the dictators):

"In nuclear explosives, we have a concentrated form of energy which we now know how to make clean, and cheap, and safe. ... It is cheap and it can be made very clean." [In 1956, the Redwing-Navajo test of 4.5 megatons was 95% fusion, with only 5% of its energy coming from fission, while the 50 megaton test by Russia in 1961 was 97-98% fusion.  Lower yield neutron bombs are made cleaner clean by virtue of their low yield, their burst height, and by using neutron radiation from fusion rather than fission to deter invasions.]"

- Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, The Paul Anthony Brick Lectures, University of Missouri Press, 1964, p. 55.

"In many regions where the ground is dry and does not consist of the hardest rocks, a satisfactory shelter will cost $200 per person.  For a few percent of our military expenditures we could provide very many of our endangered citizens with a shelter ... If building of shelters is a sign of militarism, why is it that precisely these two nations, Sweden and Switzerland, did escape the ravages of the world wars of the twentieth century? ... The real reason why civil defence [which Thatcher restarted in 1980 in Britain with Protect and Survive] is so important is this: If we are prepared, then doomsday will never come. ... The Russian Communists are not madmen.  They are cautious.  It is one of the most quoted statements of Lenin: 'I take one step backwards, in order later to advance two steps.'  And Mao Tse-Tung, whom we call an adventurer, is quoted: 'To fight against odds is not the mark of a revolutionary; it is the mark of a fool.'  The Communists will never attack us if they know that we can defend ourselves.  No administration of this country will initiate an attack.  If we are prepared, the Russians will not attack and we shall be safe."

- Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, The Paul Anthony Brick Lectures, University of Missouri Press, 1964, pp. 44-49.

The refugee crises from civil wars in Syria and Libya is due in large part to the failure of civil defence provisions, evacuation and billeting, shelters, and humanitarian assistance for survival.  Millions of refugees did not flee from Britain when it was bombed in WWII.  Those who encourage people to run away from their problems are the sort who run away from objective discussions, by using censorship to shut up honest debates.

Edward Teller, The Reluctant Revolutionary, The Paul Anthony Brick Lectures, University of Missouri Press, 1964, pp. 35-40:

"Even if somebody would use cobalt bombs, and even if no countermeasures were taken ... the danger would be only three or four times as great as that due to more conventional bombs.  But to clean up those amounts [of long lived cobalt-60 fallout, taking 5.3 years for half the atoms to decay, where from each cobalt-60 atom made with a neutron into cobalt-59, you get just 2.5 MeV of energy in two gamma rays, of 1.17 and 1.33 MeV respectively, compared to the 200 MeV you will get from a fission event using the same neutron] ... is relatively easy - particularly so because the action of the cobalt is slow; it extends over five years [actually the half life of about 5.3 years corresponds to an average lifetime in exponential decay of 5.3/ln2 = 5.3 x 1.44 = 7.6 years, i.e. a maximum initial gamma ray energy release rate of just 2.5/8 = 0.33 MeV/year/cobalt-60 atom formed = 10^{-8} MeV/second/neutron capture in Co-59]... What we need today is smaller weapons, more flexible weapons, above all, weapons of defense.  The popular phrase 'overkill' does apply ... in propaganda and pseudoscientific writing.

"The real effort ... is not directed towards useless size, but toward the realistic questions of how to destroy the enemy's military potential ... Read the sad annals of war and you will find that ... we should not consider ourselves in a unique and unprecedented position.  Let me remind you of one of the most terrible wars.  In the year 1220, Genghis Khan invaded Persia.  He was far removed from his base.  He made up his mind that in order to subdue Persia he must destroy it.  He must leave nobody alive.  And this is what he did.  The Mongols would ride into a city and kill every man, woman, and child ... in that dreadful war more than 90% of the Persians were killed.  Persia used to be a great, flourishing country; it never recovered. ... it is better to know ...

"Open discussion is certainly preferable to the Noble Lie of Plato's Guardians.  We cannot be satisfied if we are given well-intentioned programs based on misleading statements. ... The statements of Linus Pauling on this particular subject [nuclear war capabilities] are based on precisely no information.  Why does he make these statements? ... Unfortunately, I cannot contradict him ... We have arrived at a stage where the democratic process cannot function.  The common man, the voter who should make the decisions, can be scared by unproven statements, and these statements cannot be authoritatively contradicted on account of secrecy."

Update (25 June 2016):

Facts about Prime Minister Cameron's decision to resign following the 52% vote by the UK to leave the EUSSR in the referendum on 23 June 2016:

1. The man had no debate in Parliament on the issue because his official "opposition", Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, was on the same side in the debate.  Thus, there was no democracy, no real debate.

This is analogous to the failure of democracy in Britain the the 1930's. Apart from a few rebel MPs who were easily brushed aside or ignored (e.g. Churchill prior to September 1939), the main "debate" was specious: Labour's big stars like Lansbury and his fans wanted disarmament to physically prevent any war by making us vulnerable (backed up by Angell and Joad, who arrogantly and absurdly claimed that if the Nazis invaded they could be defeated by mere laughter), while the Conservatives wanted appeasement.  Democracy failed there because the Conservatives were in favour of making peace deals with Hitler, not deterring him credibly by an intense arms race.  Britain deliberately rearmed much slower than Germany, so as not to give any chance of provoking a repeat of the situation of the August 1914 "arms race accident" (actually the deliberate invasion of Belgium as part of a plan by the Kaiser, who had plenty of opportunity to resist war).  In other words, Britain was losing relative strength by losing the arms race (rearming slower), not gaining strength relative to Germany.  The expense of all the pre-war weapons was trivial to the cost of the war, despite propaganda to the contrary.

2. In 2014, during the era of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Britain, and when all pollsters wrongly predicted another coalition in the May 2015 election, Prime Minister Cameron committed to offering a referendum on EU membership as an election pledge if he won the May 2015 election, in order to win the election against opposition from anti-EU UKIP which was fielding candidates on an anti-EU ticket.  Cameron however was pro-EU like his predecessor John Major, who twenty years earlier had signed the Maastrict Treaty without a public referendum, turning the essentially economic union into a political superstate EU.  The reason why Cameron promised an EU referendum in 2014, unlike John Major, was because it was predicted at that time by all pollsters that he would not have to keep it due to the predicted probability of another coalition with the "Liberal Democrats" (led by pro-EU bigoted Nick Clegg), who are as their name suggests to anyone who understands propaganda, totally undemocratic and resist having referendums:

"The polls has confidently predicted another coalition in which he [Prime Minister Cameron] knew he could rely on Nick Clegg ["Liberal Democrat" leader, the opposite of a liberal democrat] to veto the referendum legislation.  So ... no chance of one at all.  Having won [unexpectedly with a majority that avoided a coalition government and thus kept Nick Clegg's "Liberal Democrats" with their anti-democracy, no-referendum bigotry out of government], he could not avoid it." - Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 24 June 2016, p13.

Thus, by trying to be clever and offer something he did not intend to give, he fell on his sword.  But there's a deeper problem here: the failure of democracy to operate as it is supposed to be most important.  It failed in the 1930's because all "sides" were wrong.  In order to have a meaningful debate, you need to allow freedom and to encourage new interpretations of the facts, not to allow the biggest two or three parties in the cartel to shout down heretics with abuse.

3. If Russia and other countries which subdue liberties have followed the abuses of democracy in Britain, they will see that in reality there is very little real democracy democracy here.  So they can with some justification claim that we don't have much moral superiority to talk about free democracy in the West. First, democracy means a daily referendum by the people on actual issues, a process that was possible in the ancient Greek city-states and which with modern secure online banking type database technology is available for millions of people today.  Instead, we have a very weakened, dilute alternative in which it is deliberately made difficult to implement change, or even to start a discussion on something unfashionable like arms to deter wars and civil defence to save lives.  Instead of a daily referendum on issues, we have votes every few years for a choice between two fashionable, very similar parties, often involving the same people who hang around for decades in politics instead of making way.

If a daily referendum on one issue a day is 100% democracy, then a vote for a choice between two rivals every four years is 100/(365 x 4) = 0.07% democracy.  In fact it is weaker than that, because there is an overlap in the policies of the "rivals" on offer, and they don't go away after 4 years (some hang around with the same agendas for decades in repeated elections).  Then, you have the problem that real rival policies are under the radar of the fashionable hate agenda media which camouflages itself in the colours of the "revolutional, progressive, minority supporting liberals", but is composed of bigoted, ignorant, populist dictators.  Finally, there is the claim that anyone can raise concerns in that media between elections, to put pressure on politicians.  In reality, anything that is unfashionable gets rudely censored out or ignored by the haters of free debate who delude themselves falsely that arrogant bigotry based on ignorance is a liberal, progressive, democratic, moral, caring, unselfish, approach.

4. After a majority of the British public votes to leave the EUSSR, instead of accepting that all their hate propaganda had backfired, the "Remain in EU" losers were allowed to launch more hate attacks on TV. For example, Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party was allowed to claim on TV, without her hypocrisy being questioned, that it was moral for Scotland to both leave the UK and remain in the EU.  Leaving the UK, she claimed, would be "independence for Scotland" and "freedom for Scotland", yet she also claimed hypocritically that for the UK to leave the EU would not be the same independence and freedom for the UK.  The bias in the journalists who failed to point out this contradiction to her, while inventing bogus arguments and myths about "dangers" for the UK to heckle the other side with, is plain:

EU Mythbuster article by Patrick OFlynn MEP for UKIP in Daily Express.  The Guardian, The Independent, and other "elitist" papers as well as TV news ignores the debunking of myths and instead continues to promote the myths as the truth, while censoring criticism as ill-informed propaganda or lies, without realising the damage that such fear mongering dishonesty does to the economy and to genuine efforts to have debate.  The mythology submerges the truth with loud screaming noise, effectively censoring reason with emotional bigotry. 
5. The bottom line of the analysis of this travesty of democracy is this: even if by a combination of accidents and hard work, the people are allowed a referendum and reject the entire political class (both the government under Prime Minister Cameron and the opposition under Jeremy Corbyn), they will go on claiming that the democratic result is a mistake due to a failure of the bigoted political class to express enough emotional hate attack ranting on the options they disrespect, to subdue rational debate in order to "win".  A drop of 2% in the Down Jones Index yesterday (to a level matched as recently as 19 May, just over a month ago) was falsely hyped by Jon Snow's Channel 4 news as a world economic recession triggered by Britain. The Russian RT news channel looks like a fount of honesty by comparison.

Above: All the PM has to do is implement the Institute of Economic Affairs £80,000 prize winning Brexit plan of Iain Mansfield. Any delay will be costly. The EU wants us out FAST to reduce instability, and so that is a good bargaining chip for agreeing strong EU-UK trade agreements. If that bargaining chip is lost due to time-wasting (electing a new PM in October!), the deal will not be so good. Don't miss the boat Cameron! This report today says Prime Minister Cameron (who promised to stay either way the referendum went) has now chickened out of doing anything until October, saying the work of Brexit is too much like "hard s@&t" for his taste! (Source: Daily Express, 25 June 2016.)
Prime Minister Cameron for two years has suppressed the £80,000 prize Brexit plan author Iain Mansfield from even being allowed to speak in public because he hates genuinely informed, prize winning, free debates and public information before a public referendum (he permits only contrived strawman debates between liars):  This censorship should be ended now. Mansfield should be put in charge of Brexit while Prime Minister Cameron twiddles his thumbs or makes egotistic, emotional, ranting, self-congratulatory, personal speeches that do nothing for this country or for the world, while claiming the opposite.  For the news of the Institute of Economic Affairs Prize for the Brexit plan that can benefit everybody, please click here, and for the plan itself please click here. Because pseudo-"opposition leader" Jeremy Corbyn is effectively on the same side as Prime Minister Cameron over this, there is now chaos.