www.nukegate.org Glasstone's book exaggerates urban nuclear weapons effects by using unobstructed terrain data, without the concrete jungle shielding of blast winds and radiation by cities!
President Elect Trump's walls not wars idea is very well founded. This is a photo (taken by yours truly) of one of the ancient Roman Walls still surviving here in Colchester, after nearly 2000 years. The original Roman Walls here in Colchester were constructed for protection only after the original town (then the capital of England) was burned down by rebel tribes headed by Queen Boudicca, whose daughters had been raped by the Romans. Walls with defended gate houses slow down attackers and prevent easy terrorism style raids. Like the effectiveness of a seatbelt in a car against the most likely disasters (but not all possibilities), or the locked door on a building keeping out most intruders (but not one using a truck for a ram raid), a wall won't necessarily prevent or negate all kinds of air attacks and sieges, but it does make it much harder for the attacker. Most ancient cities in the Middle East and in Europe had walls. Peace wall were also constructed to defend England from Scotland (Hadrian's wall), to safeguard Catholics and Protestants during the terrorism in Northern Ireland, and to defend the whole of China! The great scandal for Syria and Ukraine is the lack of defence walls, a lack which has resulted in disaster and civil war.
Both Brexit and Trump are examples of the usual dogmatic human entrenchment of a pseudo "elite" which can only be overthrown by a dirty political revolution, because those in power use every trick in the book to suppress and censor facts that don't fit their agenda but overthrow it:
"Republican Presidential nominee Donald J. Trump made history Sunday and the political media barely noticed. Or maybe they did see it - but since it didn’t fit the narrative of what a Republican is supposed to look like they decided to ignore it. On Sunday, at a rally in Colorado, Mr. Trump proudly held up a rainbow flag with the words “LGBT for Trump” written on it to a cheering crowd of thousands." - Richard Grenell, Washington Times.
BBC Andrew Neil (middle) and colleagues show their displeasure plainly at 3.32 am GMT, when Trump won Ohio.
BBC crises worsens at 4.11 GMT when Trump wins North Carolina.
The BBC went hysterical at 4.33am GMT, when Trump took Florida. I was watching live on a tablet in bed with headphones.
BBC depression shows plainly as Trump takes Florida, 4.34 GMT. (All these photos are screenshots from my tablet.)
Similarly, the media attacks on Trump are ad hominem (attacking the person, not the policy): old tapes of him being coarse and crude about women, or legally minimising business tax, none of this is criminal any more than Clinton's recklessly careless approach to using NATO member pressures for bombing Libya into civil war, or for using an insecure private blackberry home email server for classified emails which she then had deleted in a cover-up; nevertheless Clinton's failings seem to be more relevant for world peace and Presidential discretion than Trump's. I did not believe he would be elected last night; instead I was resigned and preparing a blog post for the consequences for Clinton's continued actions in uselessly provoking hostility and potential conflict with Putin, et al.
The analogy of Trump's election to the Brexit vote in the UK in June seems true on three levels:
(1) The irony that the media and media believers in both the pro-EUSSR anti-Brexit "remainers" and the pro-Clinton fan base were both in fact establishment, anti-change conservatives, pretending to be really liberal such as Democrats or progressive. They selfishly refuse to embrace change, they irrationally fear the change of making progress, and worst of all, they immorally "close down debates" by hurling hate abuse instead of objectively examining all the facts. They are change haters, not objective, liberal progressives. They don't really want improvements, but prefer to stick to the familiar fashionable establishment that feeds them propaganda, false hopes, and insincerity poorly camouflaged as "experienced moral profundity". Confidence trickery catering to dictators.
(2) Deprived white people are termed "racists" if they compare themselves to foreigners such as economic migrants who are treated as a higher priority by politicians. Actually, the alleged "racists" consider the immigrants as "racists" (anti-white prejudice), and in areas where immigrants outnumber or intimidate the white minority, this is a valid complaint. Slavery was abolished in the 19th century, and full civil rights equality instituted during the 20th century. Calling white minorities racists for protesting when the are intimidated by gangs of "infidel"-bashing immigrants proved costly to policing of gang violence in Birmingham. Immigration was also exploited by big businesses for cheap labour, to avoid giving the jobs at higher wages to local folk of possibly different race. You get the feeling that the bombing of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, to displace millions of desperate immigrants is exploited - if not deliberately engineered by cynical politicians - in order to provide desperate refugees who are prepared to work for low wages, undercutting the "natives" (who, if they complain, are then insulted as "racists" by "political leaders", in precisely the way Gillian Duffy was dismissed as a "bigoted woman" for merely questioning uncontrolled immigration's devastating impact by Prime Minister Brown in 2010). The tendency of the "establishment" to "deal with this problem" by screaming false hate abuse terms like "racist" eventually backfires in the way seen in Brexit and the USA 2016 Presidential election. The word "racist" in some cases such as the KKK is of course justified, but it is not justified for all Brexit/Trump voters, and it is racism itself when thus misapplied.
(3) No lie detector test is practicable or would be reliable for polls to predict the election result. Clinton's side (including, shamefully, the bigoted and ignorant Catholic Pope) vilified Trump on a range of alleged bigotries, from women to "walls not wars" solution to both Mexican drug dealers and political terrorists (ignoring the historical fact that Hadrian's Wall in England and the Great Wall of China proved how walls reduced or even prevented terrorism and wars for centuries). As a result, when poll survey staff try to get reactions from people on voting intentions, the data is unreliable. Even with a lie detector test (slow and costly for surveys of 1000 people which is needed for accuracy with 3% standard deviation, since the latter is the 100 times reciprocal of the square root of the size of the sample), people tend to tell people what they think the other person "expects to hear". In other words, people "filter" their speech to avoid sounding arrogant, autistic or nasty, rather than enter a long and pointless defense of freedom of thought, and this means lying in speech to "sound socially acceptable". Lie detector tests won't detect anxiety, since data given to poll surveys will never be individually checked against secret ballots to confirm if the person is telling the truth! Besides, people are so used to filtering their speech in this way to conform socially that they don't feel any qualms about "lying". They're "just being polite," not lying.
BBC Newsnight election special (8-9pm, 11 November 2016) featured the establishment clown Jerry Springer who falsely claimed that multiculturalism = liberalism, not integration = liberalism. Multiculturalism without walls between the different cultures, is what started off the Syrian civil war. If everyone had been integrated, all Sunni or all Shia with a government of the same sect, there would have been less friction.
Alternatively, if there had been walls between the different sects, there would have been less friction. Walls aren't always bad, if they stop crime like class A drugs or terrorists. They were built between Protestants and Catholics in Londonderry and other cities of Northern Ireland, and reduced suffering until the IRA were disarmed. This is tried and tested technology for reducing aggression:
What worries me is that the BBC is retreating into an mad ivory tower of pontificating, abusive, gibberish "elite intellectuals" who have as much sense as Karl Marx, and are ignoring all this proof tested evidence: the BBC trusts leftie fanatics whose policies cause violence, war, and suffering.
Many other proved examples of walls against terrorists and war exist in history, too. Hadrian's Wall kept Scottish terrorists from Roman Britain. It is about 72 miles long, 20 feet high (originally; obviously it had to be breached for the M1 motorway, which runs from England to Scotland, and for the railway links). It took 6 years to build, beginning in 122 AD:
I hope the BBC left are not going to vandalise surviving Roman walls like ISIS, in another bizarre and frankly insane effort to cover up the truth about the utility function of walls in preserving world peace. Walls in combination with the replacement of multiculturalism with integration, and credible deterrence of Russian tanks, can provably have a role contribute to produce World Peace.
Again, the leftie stance should have been totally discredited by the facts that the world's biggest mass murderer Stalin trained as a Priest, Lenin trained as a lawyer and the founder of fascism Mussolini, started out as a communist newspaper editor (fascism is an Italian communist intervention for getting past democracy, just as anti-Trump rioters are trying in several cities, as I type this). These are precisely the backgrounds the "establishment" trusts most to bring peace, filling the non-United Nations as once they filled the League of Nations which failed to stop WWII. Such facts should explain precisely why such elitist professionals have proved a failure at achieving world peace.
Jerry Springer should not be given more BBC airtime to rant, unchallenged, his nefarious claim that liberalism is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the cause of war. Nationalism and integration keep the peace; it was Hitler's and Stalin's inter-nationalism that caused wars. The way to avoid war is therefore to end multiculturalism, to reduce cultural conflicts that arise from contradictory cultural customs. If you look at the places where "different cultures live together peacefully" they are all places where the people have integrated and accommodated other cultures by integrating the cultures successfully. This integration is a compromise which produces a single integrated culture that everyone understands, respects and agrees to.
It is simply a lie to claim that there are any examples of successful multiculturalism, since when you actually see the places, what exists in them is not multiculturalism, but is instead effectively a single culture (integration, not multiculturalism), which is achieved by people deliberately suppressing their own cultural attributes in order to fit in, or integrate. For example, language, religion, and habits must be curtailed in order to avoid giving offence. The result is that everyone is integrated. If you have genuine multiculturalism, you have frictions that cause civil wars, unrest, division of society, race war, religious war, etc.
Tolerance is the opposite of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism means multiple cultures and is intolerant, divisive, hate generating. Multiculturalism causes differences: differences in language, religion, values, customs, etc. These divisions are a source of friction because we all want to judge others by our own standards, and if others have different standards, we end up in conflict.
Multiculturalism means multiple cultures, i.e. the cause of wars, conflicts, divisions, non-integration, disunity, disagreement, hatred, and divided nations.
What Jerry Springer would certainly do if challenged would be to resort to abuse of the challenger, or as a final attack use the old Marxist trick which George Orwell calls "doublethink", redefining the word "multicultural" to mean the opposite, then claim victory! The communists used to call race war "peace", class war "peace", and so on. That way, they could sound nice, not nasty. The media is usually taken in, or fails to spot the camouflage or deception. Springer might well redefine "multiculturalism" as something other than multiple cultures! This "obfuscation tactic" is commonplace in ivory tower academia, as an alternative to replacing straightforward simple words with Latin, which was originally done by law makers to give jobs to their lawyer friends who knew Latin (which common people didn't). It's not clever, it's stupid, and it is an abuse of their elitism.
Mike Pence Wrote An Article Urging Employers Not to Hire Gay People
One such article published during Pence's tenure reads: "Homosexuals are not as a group able-bodied. They are known to carry extremely high rates of disease brought on because of the nature of their sexual practices and the promiscuity which is a hallmark of their lifestyle."
Pence also argues in the piece that homosexuality is a "pathological condition." Read the full article here.
The PDF link they give of the Dec 1993 Indiana Policy Review which they claim is by Mike Pence, http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/4336_001.pdf fails to confirm the out of context quotations of their "hateful speech" claims about Pence. They only provide page 4 and then page 2, page 2 being headed "The Chairman's Page". The Chairman is listed on page 2 as Charles S. Quilhot, not Mike Pence who is listed as President of Indiana Policy Review. Is Pence supposed to proof-read and censor the magazine written by other people? Page 4 starts off with the question in big letters, "Will a gay writing on gay issues be identified as would the owner of a local Ford dealership if he were to write on the issue of Fords?" There's no hateful speech there. Also, that was 23 years ago, and attitudes have changed enormously since then! The "societal collapse" predictions (etc.) due to gays come from the situation 23 years ago, when many things, like medical treatments for HIV, were not what they are now. Hate attack? The only hate attack is by biased Democrats against world peace.
The sooner the BBC, Sky News, the Washington Post, and LA Times, and www.out.com follow this good example of honest self-flagellation, the better it is, for both America and the rest of the world!
On the subject of media corruption, Britain's Leo McKinstry (former aide to Labour Party grandee Harriet Harman) has flagellated himself and his fellow socialists again for the punishment dished out to critics of Islamic fashion, multiculturalism, and establishment groupthink dogmas in general:
Let's just respond to that by pointing out that some guy called Jesus was convicted of religious bigotry for showing insufficient respect to the Establishment Dogma nearly two thousand years ago, and was crucified for alleged blasphemy. So really, there is nothing either magnificent or new about lynching people for free speech on the pretext that elite bigots are offended by critics. I've recently re-read Orwell's 1984 for the first time since 1990. In 1990 it was terrifying, but now it just reads like a reflection of daily life in 2016. Orwell should have named it 2016. Political correctness today is pathetic!
On the same page of that newspaper (Daily Express, 3 Nov 2016, p12) is the Editorial, headed:
"Mass migration created these growing divisions"
This Editorial explains that white people are now in a minority in many cities, and in London areas like Newham there is a 50% fall in white people over the past ten years, adding:
"Supporters of open borders like to portray Britain as a multicultural wonderland ... Instead of tolerance, acceptance and mutual understanding, mass immigration has brought separation, division and suspicion. ... [many] migrants have chosen to live surrounded by their compatriots. There has been no impetus for [many of] them to adopt our culture ... As a result, we have ethnic enclaves where not enough people can speak English and ... Sharia [Muslim law] courts have been allowed ... [due to] the suggestion that it is ... racist to encourage new arrivals to integrate..."
Victory for Trump would create a SAFER, MORE PROSPEROUS world, writes James Delingpole
"... the BBC and its crew of analysts and right-on comedians [who used crude hatred of red hair in one tirade, an insult to people like me as well as to Trump] have told us ... the dollar will collapse ... I don't believe any of this nonsense. Not only do I think that a Donald Trump presidency would be far less disastrous than a Hillary Clinton one, but I'd even bet ... that the world might become a better, safer, more prosperous place. ... [Trump] is not a member of the Washington DC establishment. ... there are definitely echoes in the US presidential campaign of the tensions which led so many of us to vote for Brexit. ... the frustrations caused by mass illegal immigration and also by the liberal elite's obsession with political correctness, which has led to a woefully bad educational system ... While Obama has fiddled during his eight years as president, the world has burned ... terrorism has proliferated; Russia and China have flexed their muscles; the eurozone has stagnated; the refugee problem has got out of control ... Take Russia ... Trump just isn't interested in prolonging the Cold War, let alone provoking a Third World War. He sees Putin as a flawed man with whom he can nonetheless do business."
I just want to confirm from personal experience what Roger L. Simon writes above about nasty elitists who are fascist thugs, usually really racist, and abusive to the poor and helpless. As a kid, I developed fluid in my inner ears which led to frequency-distorted speech. Low frequency sounds go through the fluid but higher frequencies are attenuated, so you can't understand many words and when you "repeat" the distorted words you hear, you sound like an idiot. Most kids are quickly sorted out, but I wasn't, as my mother is a fully qualified State Registered Nurse who considered herself an "expert" on medical things, it look years of her and also the headmaster of the Holy Family School (who ignorantly diagnosed me as having a tongue problem, and gave me endless useless personal abuse dressed up as patronising help in his office) before I was finally taken to a qualified audiologist who had the headphone set needed to properly diagnose the problem (it was a simple fix, small surgical holes in the eardrums to drain the fluid).
But for several years I suffered all kinds of ignorant abuse and hatred from those "elite experts" and even some kids around me, all too "busy" to actually do anything useful, and all congratulating themselves on their "helpfulness" in shouting at me so I could hear the frequency distortion louder (they wouldn't do anything useful). This is what self-proclaimed, qualified-elitists do well: they are experts at patronising, at praise themselves, and at hate others while pretending to be "helping" them.
So, yes, I've seen myself the kind of abuse given out to kids who are "different". Can I also add that I don't quite agree with all that I quote from Leo McKinstry and others on the topic of "Islamophobia". The problem, and thus solution, is deeper than he acknowledges in the articles he has written so far. The problem is not Islam, but the conflict within it, the different subcultures, Sunni, Shia, etc., which in extreme cases do cause civil wars and therefore are not extremely trivial, but rather very important.
Suppose that Britain converted from Protestant Christianity to Islam, due to rising Islamic refugee immigration and the higher birthrate of Islamic immigrants than Christians (a statistic fact). There are actually some advantages, looking logically at religion, of Islam over Christianity, particularly the lower hypocrisy level. Christians don't, in my experience, practice Christianity to the degree that Muslems practice Islam. In Christianity, you say prayers before bed and attend Sunday church. In Islam, you pray three times a day, and conform to a larger number of strict disciplinary rules.
There is a lot to be said for Islam's discipline and (usually) lack of hypocrisy. If you want a strong religion to structure your life, Islam does the job.I'm not generally anti-Islam, or even against more Islamic immigrants, who are usually hard working, friendly, nice people who want to get along with others and don't simply hate "infidels". My doctor and dentist are both Muslim, and if anything are better and nicer than any others I know.
The leaders of Islam in the UK may not, however, always in future be able to deal with different factions, Sunni versus Shia, or able to control real fanatics. In Christianity, we had a large number of similar internal conflicts, particularly between Catholic and Protestant fractions, most recently the terrorism in Northern Ireland. No religious leaders could control the IRA terrorists. Given the deeper discipline of Islam, when it does go to war, you can get Kamakaze-type suicide bombings, and fanatical fighting which goes beyond the kind of textbook warfare that our soldiers are normally trained to deal with.
So, given a war between Christianity and Islam in which both sides have similar technical resources, you expect the greater faith and discipline of Islam to help that side to win. What worries me is that this discipline can be abused now by extremist fanatics to a worse extent than Christianity can be abused, so that Islam may turn into a modern version of the medieval Catholic Spanish Inquisition if the fanatics take charge, as they have in various Middle East cults of terrorists and bigots.
4. DEMOCRAT Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to push NATO members into bombing Libya ignored all the experience and lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and needlessly caused a massive civil war with millions of war refugees trying to save up the money to pay conmen to escape Libya on leaky boats to Europe. Just in case anyone thinks I'm blaming only leftie whinger AMERICAN elitist ideologues for disaster, let me add that fascism was invented by communist newspaper editor Mussolini. It is a fact that in 1912 Mussolini was the leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party, a LEFT party, not right wing! Fascism all started because nobody would vote for ivory tower LEFT nonsense, so they had to control the media, becoming dictators to get into power. As for Britain, in 1914 the British Liberal party Government declared WWI against Germany after Belgium was invaded. Liberals escalated that crisis into WWI. Hitler adopted dictatorial fascism from LEFT ideologue Mussolini (Hitler's party was National Socialist). Don't forget that both Russian communists and Nazis were united in their hatred of Jews in their 1939 plan to jointly invade Poland, Germany from the West, Russia from the East (censored from Russian history textbooks today). This racism was against perceived rich capitalists ("Jewish" was a term of abuse for such people). Heavy socialist state spending by Hitler bankrupted Germany, forcing his invasions and slavery in concentration camps. Churchill's decision to bomb Germany failed to have a decisive strategic effect as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey discovered after the war, but instead led to further starvation and gas genocide in the concentration camps. This should have profound consequences for policies to bomb civilian cities today, but is still taboo. (You still hear about "precision bombing" just as you did in the 1930s. The excuse for "poor accuracy" has merely changed from "the bombers were taking flak, so they had to jettison the bombs early" or "there was too much cloud cover over the military factories when the bombers arrived", to today's problem of terrorists using "human shields". "Well, those terrorists were hiding in a hospital full of kids!"or "the enemy are recruiting kids now." The problem that smashing up cities in this way is failing to really tackle the basic issues is still taboo. If you want to bomb civilian cities, it would be good to at least give them the benefit of proof tested UK WWII civil defence improvised shelters, to reduce the civilian collateral damage, but that's also taboo thanks to Mr Jeremy Corbyn's quotations from nasty fanatical quacks like civil defence hater Duncan Campbell and other CND evil scum.) This is the honest truth and we need to examine the full facts (truth is complete facts), not just those which fit into one specific agenda, in order to arrive at useful understanding of the past that can help formulate policies to avoid disasters in the future. Trump is a practical constructive business person who has openly shown his flaws and failings, whereas the establishment Democrats are paranoid about covering up defects in order to appear perfect, and are so worried about appeasing their rich, left whinger loudmouths supporters that they forget millions who are becoming the new downtrodden minority:
Reminds me of what The Smiths frontman Morrissey said in Australian magazine "Faster Louder" about the British media's refusal to accept the Brexit referendum result in June 2016 in the UK: "I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment. It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to Leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible." - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/morrissey-brexit-was-magnific…/
