CND "pacifists" and their support for terrorist "liberation" movements like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness's IRA

The "peace movement" has always been a lucrative war-mongering terrorism campaign to frighten people away from rational free debate, a war on democracy, a war on the only proof tested means to maintain peace through deterrence; in summary, peace propaganda is the use of lies and subjective scare-mongering to declare war on the very principles of liberty itself.  If you want peace, be ready for war.  If you want to encourage aggressors, disarm.

Dr Spencer Weart, "Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another" (Yale University Press, 1998, ch. 1):

“This idea had been developed by 1785 ...  A world where every state was a democracy, [Immanuel Kant] wrote, would be a world of perpetual peace.  Free peoples ... will make war only when driven to it by tyrants. ... there have been no wars between well-established democracies. ... the absence of wars between well-established democracies [has a probability of being coincidence] less than one chance in a thousand. ... robust statistics ... When toleration of dissent has persisted for three years ... a new republic [is] ‘well established.’ ... [Diplomatic pacifism made war by the ‘appeasement trap’ of trying to ‘accommodate a tyrant.’] ... the tyrant concluded that he could safely make an aggressive response ... [thus] negotiating styles are not based strictly on sound reasoning.”

As Spencer Weart's 1998 book "Never at War" proved, democracies that have tolerated dissent for at least the last three years are never at war and the probability that this is coincidence is under 0.1%; wars involving democracies result from the "appeasement trap" where a democracy makes peace treaties or talks with a dictatorship (treating it as a fellow democracy), and then the dictatorship sees this as a sign of exploitable weakness and unwillingness to fight, thus using threats and coercion, and treating the democracy as foolish. Thus, appeasement, rather than replacing threats and violence with dialogue and civilized debate as its "pacifist" backers claimed, caused wars (not just with Hitler but with other dictators like Saddam).

On 14 March 1933, Lt Col Moore Brabazon complained of Britain’s disarmament policy to the House of Commons: “The enemy of the Air Force is not across the Channel, it is in Whitehall.”  Brabazon was praised by military aviation expert W. E. Johns, who added that contrary to popular illusions, the 1914-18 war had not ended war:

“War, a barbaric custom handed down through centuries of fear, will only be condemned to the limbo of such things as witchcraft, torture and feudal systems, when nations come to know each other better, for with mutual understanding will come confidence, goodwill and a toleration of each others’ national characteristics; our hopes, our curses and blessings, our likes and dislikes, and our pleasures and antipathies.”

– W. E. Johns, “Disarmament, Dementia and Economy,” editorial, Popular Flying, May 1933.

Conventional propaganda-led historical treatments by fashionable CND founding/backing/applauding “historians” such of A. J. P. Taylor and his entourage of the “appeasement problem” entirely miss the Chamberlain coercion point.  Chamberlain's government attempted to edit the media by pushing publishers of periodicals to fire or clamp down on free speech, most notoriously trying to stop cartoons by David Low ridiculing Hitler from appearing in the Evening Standard, but also successfully getting military aviation journalists like Captain W. E. Johns fired as Editor of Flying (weekly) and Popular Flying (monthly, founded March 1932).  These journals were widely read by other journals and so had indirect as well as direct influence on the public and politics. Instead, the historians tend to be taken in by the illusion of a “free press”, thus ignoring coercion and taking the published articles and their editing at face value.  People like A. J. P. Taylor prefer to focus exclusively on the inept “star players” with direct “key government influence” like Winston Churchill, who actually appeased Hitler in his article “The Truth About Hitler” (Strand Magazine, Nov. 1935; Hitler still complained about the article not being nice enough).

Johns’ was proved correct when Japan simply withdrew from the “League of Nations” after being “condemned” for invading China.    He ridiculed the pseudo-“freedom of the press” (officialdom-cultivated newspaper journalists whose “defence correspondents” relied on propaganda handouts and friends in Westminster).  Johns’ views received support from Brigadier-General P. R. C. Groves’ new book, Behind the Smoke Screen.  The Government’s sock puppets accused Johns of “warmongering” and “clamouring” for arms:

“Feeling in this country runs the way the party in power at Westminster wants it to run, its wishes being conveyed to the public by means of carefully prepared propaganda in the newspapers. … [Hitler] has not kept strictly to the letter of the disarmament clause … The cost of a thousand aeroplanes today would be nothing to what failure to safeguard ourselves might cost.”

– W. E. Johns, Popular Flying editorial, January 1934.

Editor W. E. Johns was mobilized the day war broke out, 4 August 1914, with the Norfolk Yeomanry in the trenches of the Middle East until 1917, before training as a fighter pilot and serving in France from 1917-18.  Shot down in 1918, he was taken prisoner, escaped and was recaptured three times, ending up in a Bavarian punishment camp.  Describing patrols during trench warfare, he wrote: “you remember (and you never forget it) that there is a chance that at any moment you may trip over a land-mine, walk into a line of bullets …” (W. E. Johns, Men Only, March 1940.)

W. E. Johns, “Popular Flying” Editorial, July 1934:

“I hold the view that the more aeroplanes we have the more likely we are to avoid war. ... The more we bristle with aeroplanes, the longer people will think before they start anything.”

Johns relied for his Nazi threat data on his personal friends inside Germany, first the commandant of Johns’ last prisoner of war camp (Fort Orff near Heppberg), and second the German Luftwaffe fan Willy Heckel (who gave Johns details in a Barcelona meeting, during November 1934).  (Source: P. B. Ellis and J. Schofield, By Jove Biggles, Norman Wright, 2003, p. 129.)  But the disarmament fanatic Lord Londonderry, Secretary of State for Air, on 22 October 1934 attacked Johns and Churchill’s calls for “a vast armament of aeroplanes” in a speech to the Mechanics Institute in Darling.  Winston Churchill responded in the Daily Express on 1 November 1934, but the disarmers simply dismissed him as scare mongering for political ends (warmongering):

“Germany is arming secretly, illegally and rapidly.  A reign of terror exists in Germany to keep secret the feverish and terrible preparations they are making.”

W. E. Johns pointed out in his “Popular Flying” Editorial, December 1935:

“However appalling war may be, and however remote the chance of success, a nation that can lay any claim to the title will always fight rather than suffer an intolerable peace. ... There seems to be only one thing that we can do, and that is pick up the weapons we so foolishly laid aside when we went to Geneva, spit on our hands, and keep an eye on our property.”

After the Disarmament Conference collapsed as he predicted, the Government quangos inevitably attempted to place the blame not on Hitler but on those who wanted to deter Hitler, people like editor W. E. Johns:

“... the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of, and Trading in, Arms ... in its report ... has quoted certain statements that have been made on this page and endowed them with a meaning far from the one intended. ... I have supported armaments – or, rather, the policy of rearmament - ... because it is my firm conviction that only by a fair balance of power can peace be maintained. ... The Disarmament Conference failed ... The reason was that England had lost her talking point.  With 3,000 more aeroplanes in the nation’s hangars our ‘friends’ would have been more genuine in their anxiety to talk of peace.  Surely it must be quite clear to anyone who has watched the march of events since 1918 that England, inadequately armed, was wasting her time by even attending conferences of any sort, where the men who have the guns have ever called the tune.

“Following the line of argument of the disarmament theorists, we might as well disband the police force in the hope of ending crime.”

- W. E. Johns, “On the folly of war,” Popular Flying editorial, May 1936.

Today’s UN “international police force” is powerless to stop crime/war because all the major players have a veto, guaranteeing that someone will veto intervention; hence you need armies, or national police, not “international police” controlled by an ineffectual diplomatic system.

“When Mr Chamberlain first stepped into an aeroplane bound for Germany we were on the very brink of war. ... In plain, unvarnished fact, what really happened was this.  Civilization was suddenly confronted by a new menace – an international gangster in a big way.  That’s all Hitler really is.  Just an arch-gangster; a thug who points a machine gun at a crowd of men, women and children ...”

- W. E. Johns, Flying, 29 October 1938.

“The danger was there for all to see.  Most people saw it.  Unfortunately, those whose business it was to take the necessary precautions did not see it.  Or if they did they buried their heads, ostrich-like, in the sands of their commendable but out-of-date belief in British immunity from catastrophe. ... Parity is not enough.  If Germany has 5,000 bombers, then we must have 10,000.  For every blow that Hitler can strike, we must be able to strike two in return.  This is the only argument dictators understand.”

- W. E. Johns, “On Peace in Our Time,” Popular Flying, December 1938.

P. B. Ellis and J. Schofield state in their biography of Johns, “By Jove Biggles” (published by Norman Wright, 2003, p. 146):

“[W. E. Johns] returned to London in early January [1939] to find his editorial attacks on the Government had upset several prominent politicians who were now bringing pressure to bear on [publisher] George Newnes Ltd to have him removed from his editorships.  Johns … had been removed from the editorship of the weekly Flying and given notice that the May issue of Popular Flying would be his last as editor. … According to information that Johns gave his [book] publishers, Hodder and Stoughton: ‘In 1939, as a result of criticism of the Government’s lagging air policy, he was removed from the editorial chairs of both Popular Flying and Flying …’.”

The less popular, non-controversial new editor Oliver Stewart led to the closure of both Popular Flying and Flying during WWII. Johns suffered similar coercion from the Labour socialists after the war with regard to his attacks on the Communist Dictatorial threat in his books.  But political interference with the “free press” again intervened when in 1945, the Labour Party went to visit Johns in Scotland to try to make his children’s book hero a socialist.  In 1947, Johns wrote to fellow children’s author Geoffrey Trease, who was researching the influences on juvenile fiction writers:

“Today, more than ever, the training of the juvenile mind is important.  The adult author has little hope of changing the outlook, politics or way of life of his reader, whose ideas are fixed.  The brain of a boy is flexible, still able to absorb.  It can be twisted in any direction. … Upon us, who cater for him at the most impressionable age of his life, rests a responsibility which has been perceived by at least one political party.  To them I must give credit for working out that in four or five years’ time these readers will be voters.  Biggles, therefore, may have some bearing on the future of the country.”

- W. E. Johns, quoted in Geoffrey Trease, editor, Tales out of school, Heinemann, London, 1949.

Expanding on this later, Johns wrote:

“After the war, a member of the Labour Government came to see me at my house in Scotland.  They were impressed by the hold Biggles had on young minds, minds which in another 5 years would be voting.  Couldn’t I possibly give Biggles a few Socialist tendencies?  It would be worth my while.”

- W. E. Johns, quoted by Hunter Davies, Sunday Times, 4 July 1965.

The hard left responded to both the anti-appeasement and anti-political stance by slandering Johns for alleged racism and violence.  English lecturer Bob Dixon of Stockwell College, in his two-volume diatribe, “Catching them young” (Pluto Press, London, 1977), a piece of sophistry claiming: “Johns’ fixation on race is quite abnormal.”  This in 1979 led to the Education Institute of Scotland banning all Johns’ books as racist, based on a liars dogmatic mythology of socialist academic ideology.  P. B. Ellis and J. Schofield, “By Jove Biggles,” Norman Wright, 2003, p. 199:

“The critics who have judged the series adversely seem to have done so on very little reading and highly selective quotations. … ‘Objectionable’ passages themselves should be considered in their contexts.”

Dixon and others on the left simply ignored Johns work for feminism in his Worrals book series and contrived the racism charge in ignorance, using a provably false interpretation of highly misleading out-of-context misquotations from 2 out of 96 Biggles books, the other 94 books having white European villains.  Johns most misquoted book on the racism charge was first published two years after his death, in which a villain called “Lazor the Razor, from the habit of carrying an old-fashioned cut-throat razor, his favourite weapon … Actually, he’s a British subject.  He must be … although he might be one of those queer crossbreed types that can be thrown up almost anywhere between Liverpool and the Middle East.”  In fact, the criticisms of this rely on a provably false interpretation of the intended meaning of the term queer, which simply meant unusual, not inferior as critics claimed (in Johns final book, Biggles does some homework, written around the same time and also published after his death, Johns has such a mixed race hero take over the job of his lead character Biggles when he retires!).  The one other book singled out by the Dixon-agenda lobby had a coloured poacher in Africa as the villain.  As P. B. Ellis and J. Schofield argue: “Unless no African can ever be a poacher or a gangster, there is nothing racialist about the words used to describe him.” (By Jove Biggles, Norman Wright publisher, 2003, p. 203.)  

THE IRA TERRORISTS AND PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

People like ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair often claim that the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland is a blueprint for solving all the world's problems, particularly the Palestine Moslems versus the Israeli Jews.  If Catholics and Protestants can agree to share devolved power in Northern Ireland, why can't the Islam and Israel?  The two reasons are that: (1) extremist Shia Moslems have a greater difference with Jews than Protestant Christians have with Catholic Christians (both after all different sects of the same basic religion), and (2) the two sides in Northern Ireland have been long settled in situ, so there was no fear of being opening the door to a vast change in the culture caused by immigration (which is key to the Israeli worries about opening the door to an influx of Arabs).  These two differences make the situations incomparable.

But the terrorism issue is of interest.  The USSR under Brezhnev's KGB chief Andropov (later Premier himself after Brezhnev's death) supported terrorism across the world, including gun running to the IRA and subversive infiltration of the enemy's media and political civil service, not merely to spy, but also to spread propaganda to leaders from under cover of official-looking camouflage.  These tactics are being used in the Ukraine today by the pro-Russian separatists.  Undoubtedly there are pro-Russians everywhere in small numbers, but in the Ukraine they are being organized, agitated and armed by Russia.  Putin is on the record calling the break up of the USSR a tragedy, and recently claiming that another superpower is needed to balance American influence and power in the world.  In other words, he denies the USSR "evil empire" history, and wants to put the clock back to the "good old days" of the Cold War and the arms race.

So let's examine an example of how terrorism succeeds in bringing about dialogue.  During World War II, German "Jerry" pushed propaganda-terrorism into the Blitz on London and over British towns and cities, but it wasn't only German "Jerry" using terrorist tactics against Britain in WWII: in 1942 the IRA's Gerry Adams was shot and wounded while attacking a police patrol in Northern Ireland.  That Gerry Adams was the namesake father of Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams, now arrested and currently being questioned over the abduction and murder of mother of ten, Jean McConville.

Brendan "the dark" Hughes, who in 1972 participated in the IRA's "Bloody Friday" attacks using 20 car bombs that caused 139 casualties including 9 dead, claimed that Gerry Adams ordered Jean McConville's murder for being an informer.  Her remains were finally discovered on a beach.  Despite this, the Queen shook Gerry's hand in 2012.

Above: Martin McGuinness, deputy leader of the IRA in Londonderry/Derry in 1972 during the "Bloody Friday" IRA terrorist bloodshed, has stepped in to offer his view that the arrest of his friend Gerry Adams is a political action by rogue elements of the police.  What a surprise!  I bet Gerry is pleased to have someone so reputable behind him.  After all, good old Martin last month had dinner with the Queen, and in 1973, Her Majesty the Queen technically had the "pleasure" of giving Martin McGuinness six months free board and lodgings, after he was caught with explosives and ammunition.

Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein and Martin McGuinness are the living proof that cheap underground terrorism and "peace propaganda" does pay in forcing an opponent to open dialogue.  The Vietcong's literally underground (tunnel shelter) resistance to expensive bombing by the West demonstrates the failure financially and diplomatically of aerial power.  If you want to force an enemy into concessions and dialogue, you must be capable of using successful, not unsuccessful tactics over a long period of time to wear down enemy resistance.  This is what the Putin-backed Russian separatists are attempting to do in the Ukraine.

The USA doesn't have effective mass civil defense because Scientific American's Lawyer/book reviewer James Newman in 1961 falsely dismissed Herman Kahn's book on the effectiveness of civil defense as a support for war deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, a "moral tract on mass murder".  But when the chips go down, the most vital job of civil defense in the first place is to boost war deterrence to PREVENT war.  If you exaggerate the effects of war so much that it is totally incredible, you might as well disarm and wave a white flag.

So we in England based all our cold war civil defence on our first  nuclear test Operation Hurricane at Monte Bello in 1952, which proved the validity of the WWII Anderson shelters and concrete buildings (unlike the wooden houses that burned down in Hiroshima) and we've uploaded key declassified reports at the UK National Archives to Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/BritishNuclearTestOperationHurricaneDeclassifiedReportsToWinston This is all still censored out of lying cold war  "historians" who were trained by CND's A. J. P. Taylor (aka Moscow's "World Peace Council").

PLEASE SUPPORT PEACE BY NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE FOR WORLD DEMOCRACY THROUGH FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION BY FASCIST OR DEMOCRACY-DILUTING TYRANT DICTATORSHIPS (TRUE NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE), ENFORCED BY DETERRENCE MADE CREDIBLE AND EFFECTIVE BY CIVIL DEFENCE.  NOT SURRENDER TO LYING, ILLIBERAL, DISSENT-CENSORING, FEAR-MONGERING, ELITIST, TERRORIST, COERCIVE, SCARE-MONGERING!

The World Peace Book is now on the Internet Archive, debunking the usual socialist agenda driven propaganda such as "disarm for peace", "give in to dictators for peace", and "go naked into the conference chamber for peace" and emphasising in its place the worthy role of civil defence (which is also useful against tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural events) which is still viciously attacked by the "peace movement" who falsely reject out of hand the one proven method of world peace by democratic deterrence:

https://archive.org/details/WorldPeaceBook

World Peace Book.

More about the IRA and Russia (akin to all Russian anti-West interference throughout the world)

From Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive [Secret KGB archives, copied by Mitrokhin], Penguin, 1999, pages 492-502:

"[In 1969, the KGB Moscow "Centre" chief] Andropov ... increasingly turned to using terrorist proxies.  Among the first opportunities for their use was a new wave of troubles in Northern Ireland. On 6 November 1969 the general secretary of the Irish Communist Party, Michael O'Riordan ... forwarded a request for Soviet arms from the Marxist IRA leaders Cathal Goulding and Seamus Costello.  According to O'Riordan:

There has always existed more or less good relations between the IRA and the Irish Communists.  We not only conduct a number of public and anti-imperialist activities together, but for more than a year a secret mechanism for consultations between the leadership of the IRA and the Joint Council of the Irish Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Northern Ireland has existed and is operating. ...

"The IRA had been widely criticised by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people have been killed ... parishioners were contemptuously calling the IRA, 'I Ran Away'. ... In a report to the Central Committee [of the USSR], Andropov insisted that, before going ahead with an arms shipment, it was essential to verify O'Riordan's ability 'to guarantee the necessary conspiracy in shipping the weapons and preserve the secret of their source of supply.' ...

"... It was almost three years before the arms requested by the IRA in November 1969 ... were finally delivered by the KGB.  Shortly after the request had been made, the IRA had split into two: the Officials under Cathal Goulding and the Provisionals led by Sean MacStiofain.  The sympathies of the KGB were wholly with the Marxist Officials rather than the more nationalist Provisionals. ... the Officials were responsible for some of the bloodiest episodes in the Troubles in the early 1970s.  The only answer to the 'forces of imperialism and exploitation', Goulding [of the Marxist Officials] declared in 1971, lay 'in the language of the bomb and the bullet.'  The Official IRA's bloodthirsty attempts to upstage the Provisionals ended by alienating some of its own supporters.  In February 1972 a bomb planted at the Aldershot headquarters of the Parachute Regiment killed seven people, including a Catholic priest and five women ... On 21 August [1972, KGB chief Andropov] presented to the Central Committee a 'Plan for the Operation of a Shipment of Weapons to the Irish Friends', codenamed SPLASH. ... 2 machine-guns, 70 automatic rifles, 10 Walther pistols, 41,600 cartridges, all of non-Soviet origin to disguise the involvement of the KGB - were transported by a Soviet intelligence-gathering vessel ... the Reduktor.  The arms, in waterproof wrapping, were submerged to a depth of 40 metres on the Stanton sandbank, 90 kilometres from the coast of Northern Ireland, and attached to a marker buoy of the kind used to indicate the presence of fishing nets below the surface. ... A few hours after the arms had been deposited ... they were retrieved by a fishing vessel belonging to the 'Irish friends' ..."

 While the USSR was supplying arms to the IRA for terrorism against Britain, it was also talking peace and negotiating Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the USA.

The key fact about "winning war" is that it's always been about subversive propaganda, censorship, and spying, which subversive dictators with police states are better at than liberal democracies with lawyers shouting the word "McCarthyism" whenever defence contractors are merely asked if they are now, or have ever been, members of the communist party (or other enemy front) organization.  There is a difference between supporting liberal freedom and supporting dictatorial enemy fronts.  McCarthy's target was people who wanted the "freedom" not to speak out honestly about their views, but to hide their views and refuse to confirm or deny what they believed, even when it was highly relevant to national security.  It's the hidden agenda combined with secrecy of the fanatics which is the real problem.  McCarthy's problem was that the most dangerous communists, the Klaus Fuchs and others, were not being open and honest, but were trying to hide behind a loophole-interpretation of the Fifth Amendment,

"No person shall be held to answer ... unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in ... the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger ... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..."

The problem with this was that the Cold War was in some ways more dangerous than an open conventional war, and this Fifth Amendment was vague enough to provide an umbrella for communists and over terrorism support groups.

SEWAGE PERCOLATING UP FROM BLOCKED DRAINS, IGNORED BY STATUS QUO

Sue Mayer has written helpfully about the motivations of anti-capitalist, pacifist academic Bob Dixon (1931-2008) mentioned above, who was born in the mining village Spennymoor, brought up by his grandparents, contracted TB, studied arts at Nottingham University taking an arts degree, became a teacher, and in 1977 produced his “Catching Them Young” literature survey, with its scaremongering call for illiberal censorship to help enforce politically correct views of gender, race and religion.  Summarizing his final book, “The Wrong Bob Dixon”, it explains the development of his bitterness towards successful capitalism: “he shows clearly how his childhood in a family broken by narrow attitudes towards his unmarried mother, his illness and the war had affected him, and how his life post war had been blighted by those same narrow attitudes and the political system that confines the ambition and natural talent and creativity of young people in the education system.”

I think it is vital to understand where the hard left is coming up from, because you need to understand a problem to even have a hope of solving it.  The traditional problem is that the “establishment” ignores critics, thereby allowing underground anti-radiation or anti-capitalism ideologue attitudes to fester and to surface only in disguised, camouflage forms that hide their true agenda in order to avoid censorship.  In other words, ignoring the causes of social injustices and refusing to understand the motivations for terrorism and bitter attacks on status quo, just encourages more of it, and in a more disguised form that is harder to understand and deal with.  If we are civilized, we should seek out and deal with problems as soon as possible, or they will simply be exploited by extremists with a grudge, or enemy backed “World Peace Council” fronts.

Bob Dixon’s hard line lefty pacifist stance in his “Agitpoems” (1985) includes insults to war casualties, such as “WAR MEMORIALS 1914-18. Some fell, the inscriptions say, but did they trip or were they pushed? Some lost their lives. You do tend to lose things in a foreign country, but this does seem a bit careless. …”

So while Dixon felt happy complaining about what he considered to be the free speech of others to be provocative or agitate, he had no qualms about doing so himself, for his own provocative beliefs.  Also, as we have shown above with the example of his attack on Johns, he got the facts completely wrong.  This is the trouble with underground movements.  By refusing to engage in constructive dialogue with bitter critics of society, the status quo fails to correct their mythology with the facts, and thereby encourages falsehoods and myths (especially about radiation, nuclear weapons, and dictatorial threats) to arise and remain unchallenged as they seep into society in camouflaged, disguised form.

The problem is analogous to using perfume to try to camouflage the stink of sewage percolating up from blocked drains, due to an inefficient maintenance system for society, which simply ignores problems until they are can't be denied, and then wallpapers over the cracks.  The problem was Karl Marx wasn't "equality" but his pre-occupation and fixation on money.  This made it attractive to the masses of the poor, but it never worked.  You can't make money equal without discouraging motivation.  What Marx should have striven for was an end to subjective elitism, i.e. an increase (not decrease) in democracy.  The problems with "democracy" are not that it fails an underclass, but that we don't have enough of it: it's been too watered down by "socialist" systems put in place to curtail freedoms for real debates and to create a celebrity culture, which is a form of dictatorship by an elite.  The example of "pacifists" who cause wars by soaking the media in disarmament propaganda, and then get praised for "trying" after millions die and wars continue, is still taboo.

European Union dictatorship is behind the Ukraine crisis: UKIP's Nigel Farage 69% versus Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg 31% (ICM Poll for Guardian)

After Ukraine, Countries That Border Russia Start Thinking About Nuclear Deterrents

By Elisabeth Braw / April 15, 2014 6:04 AM EDT, Newsweek

But as in the 1930s, the illiberal, utopian disarmers hope to use failed diplomatic tactics to proclaim peace in our time:

The mainstream UK and USA media even in late 1938, a year before war, was still applauding efforts for handshaking with Hitler, because they were scared stiff of annihilation by gas, incendiaries and high explosive. However, the worst predictions failed because we had civil defence which was highly effective against all volatile, heavy molecular weight gases, including the Nazi-discovered nerve gases. So, Hitler was deterred by the combination of our gas proof rooms and gas masks as well as the threat to retaliate with our secret gas weapons (which from Hitler's perspective may have included nerve gas, since we then kept our secret weapons a real secret, instead of going for gas disarmament treaties).  If we had faced Mr Hitler without gas masks and having announced our disarmament of gas weapons and all gas research - which SIPRI and other quacks campaign for today using lies about gas effects and defensive measures - we'd have been gassed by Hitler.  Similarly, the League of Nations' disarmament program in 1933 was turned against us by Hitler, who secretly rearmed Germany.  Far from Sir Normal Angell's claim that fear of financial ruin from war would prevent Hitler starting WWII, the truth is the exact opposite: Hitler's invasions were driven by financial concerns since he couldn't fund his socialist full-employment deal (a massive army and the autobahn project, etc.) without getting money from invading his neighbours.  Likewise, if Putin the Great does invade his neighbors, using Hitler's excuse of "just correcting his borders" back to their 1989 condition (the USSR), and then the remainder of Europe to "peacefully" negate the "threat" from NATO, he will profit, and the profit will outweigh the "sanctions" against the elite in Russia.  The problem of the USSR's collapse is like that in 1918, after Germany signed the Armistice without actually being invaded.  The world economic slump of 1929 then led to Western disarmament, and Germany - having not been invaded in WWI - felt up to having another shot at European domination, electing Hitler to do the job in 1933 and later merging the Chancellor and President roles at a public referendum.  Similarly, because we didn't militarily defeat the USSR in the Cold War, Russia is able to look back to the USSR superstate with fond memories, and the temptation to replace the EU with a new version of the USSR.

"Nato and the EU — on current form — will merely appeal for ­dialogue and threaten sanctions. ­But nothing will happen. Which means the Baltics will buckle, and Putin will take back lands which he believes are rightly Russia’s.  That will be the end of Nato — and the dawn of a terrifying new world in which international rules count for nothing and the strong dominate the weak. Russia — ruthless and greedy — can play divide and rule for decades to come.  Suppose we do try to resist, with our shrunken armed forces and craven allies? With the latest round of cuts, the British Army is about to become the smallest it’s been since the Napoleonic wars. ... What’s worse, the West’s ­intelligence operations have been severely ­compromised by the exploits of Edward Snowden, the former U.S. intelligence contractor who has taken refuge in Moscow, having stolen tens of  thousands of secret state documents.  Deplorably, the complacent and self-indulgent journalists who so damagingly published the West’s intelligence secrets and effectively blinded our spies have been awarded America’s greatest journalistic honour, the Pulitzer Prize.  If the West does stand up to ­Russia, Putin will put its nuclear forces on alert, all the while decrying our ‘aggressive behaviour’."

- EDWARD LUCAS, author of The New Cold War.

"In a chilling echo of the Holocaust, Jews are 'ordered to register and list property' in east Ukraine after pro-Russian militants take over government buildings." - JULIAN ROBINSON, Daily Mail, 17 April 2014, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607154/Jews-ordered-register-list-property-east-Ukraine-city-Donetsk-pro-Russian-militants-taken-government-buidings.html

"Russian military move on Ukraine would echo HITLER annexing the Sudetenland ..." - news (linked here).
"China and Japan on the brink of Third World War" - news (linked here).

"Ukraine - Russia crisis: Could this be the start of World War III?" - news.

European Union dictatorship is behind the Ukraine crisis: UKIP's Nigel Farage 69% versus Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg 31% (ICM Poll for Guardian)

Hate campaigns of the fascist sort work by shutting down objective free speech using smears and witchhunt tactics: Deputy Prime Minister "Liberal Democrat" Nick Clegg in his two TV debates with UKIP leader and MEP Nigel Farage refused to accept that EU illiberal anti-democratic racist agenda power seeking is behind the present Ukraine crisis, instead trying to claim that anyone who stands up for objective facts and free speech is in the wrong.  These dishonest dictators are corrupted by power and see open discussion and objective understanding as a threat to their dogmatic agenda of hatred, which works by subjective (not objective) fear mongering and terror spreading about job losses if we leave the EU.  In fact we have a trade deficit with the Eurozone Continent (we import more from them than we export to them), so they get more out of trade with us than we get out of trade with them!  This means that if they try to punish us from leaving the EU dictatorship, they'll hurt themselves more than us.  Additionally, as we prove below, EU laws on "standardization" of goods sold in the UK impose upon us severe trade restrictions with countries outside the EU, which effectively costs us jobs.  Only 40% of the Britain's overseas trade is with the European Continent, it is declining, and it results in a trade deficit for us.  If we cut off EU trade, we could better exploit the growing trade markets outside Europe.  All this is taboo heresy for the dictatorial, professional exploiters like Nick Clegg of the iLiberal unDemocrat Party.

Please vote for peace by voting UKIP to avoid an EU-provoked nuclear war with Russia, and to provide Britain with a new Civil Defence Corps to keep us safe from intimidation by President Putin when he rebuilds the USSR. The self-praising smug media, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and Conservatives all failed to admit the truth about Hitler in the 1930s. Only UKIP offers peace with security against power mad nuclear dictators and natural floods through a Civil Defence Corps.

Martin Schulz, European Parliament President, Angers Israelis With West Bank Comments 

The Huffington Post UK | Posted: 14/02/2014 11:46 GMT | Updated: 18/02/2014 20:59 GMT 

Israeli MPs have walked out of a speech by the chief of the European Parliament after he raised the plight of Palestinians in the West Bank.  Martin Schulz's German address to the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, was branded "duplicitous propaganda" by one furious politician.

Above: the fanatical German, Martin Schulz, the EU Parliament President is, with fellow fanatic, the anti-neutron bomb Baroness Cathy Ashton (unelected head of EU Foreign Affairs), apparently trying to start WWIII by pressing the EU into Ukraine just as Hitler invaded Russia, and apparently also trying to copy the Nazi "Trojan horse" propaganda style, to gain power by spreading false "scares" about job losses if we give up racist EU policies and laws on "standardization" of goods, which prohibit trade with poor African farmers outside the EU.

The EU parliament is a quack "democracy" like the USSR elections of bureaucrats, since the EU parliament has no real powers of democracy and policy is instead determined by a pseudo-democratic European Council and implemented by the European Commission, an unelected civil service of 28 commissioners and 24,000 staff who propose new laws and draft legislation.

This is a copy of the USSR centralized, monolithic dictatorship of bureaucrats. The EU Parliament is totally prohibited from any right to initiate legislation, so it can only request the European Commission to draft a bill! The EU Parliament meets for just 4 days each month (apart from August), plus 6 annual 2-day "mini sessions" in Brussels or Strasbourg. A real "tower of babel", the EU employs 1,200 interpreters and 700 document translators, but despite this the journalists of member states lack of the ability to hold the immense number of remote, unaccountable, fanatically meddling bureaucrats to account. The May 2014 issue of the UK edition of Readers Digest at page 97 quotes Polish euro-deputy Jacek Saryusz-Wolski as using the argument for the EU that about 75% ("some 70 to 80 % of national legislation that directly impacts on the lives of citizens originates at the level of the European Union") of EU member states new laws comes from the EU, despite the fact that Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg tried to play down the 75% figure in his April 2014 debate with UKIP leader and MEP Nigel Farage! Thus the inconsistency that the 75% figure is used when convenient for arguing in favour of the power of the EU, but when convenient is simply dismissed by clowns like the British government's deputy PM!

The “European Parliament” is a totally toothless committee, a mere charade of democracy: being the only “parliament” where you cannot initiate legislation, propose legislation, or even repeal legislation (that’s all the job of the unelected European Commission, not the European Parliament). Europe’s political Union is modelled on the unlimited power of the USSR it superseded, a new communist confidence trick.

The European Union is a maze spread over Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, comprising of:

(1) The European Commission,
(2) The Council of the European Union,
(3) The European Council,
(4) The European Parliament, etc. (lots of other directorates, agencies, and so on).

“Because the EU’s officials are not answerable to the peoples of the nation states ... Brussels overspent its budget last year by a shocking £20 billion. [This] far exceeds anything achieved by oil company Enron. ... we have to pay £14 billion every year in our annual contribution ... a protection racket that fails to provide any protection. ... its own auditors have not given its accounts a clean bill of health for the past 18 years.  Brussels has an annual budget of £133 billion ... the EU spends £2.4 billion a year on marketing and publicity ... European officials take an average of 14.6 days off sick every year ... When its Court of Auditors in 2013 found “serious failures” in the award of EU contracts for a £13 billion pipeline between Hungary and Romania the EU said with typical insouciance, “We interpret the rules differently.” [This was precisely Putin’s response to corruption claims over the Winter Olympics.] ... the EU’s foreign service ... has 37 staff in Papua New Guinea and 32 in Mozambique.”

Nowhere is there any people’s democracy in this deliberately obfuscating network of multiple hubs of power, whose purpose is to make it look like democracy without actually being a democracy.  There is such a massive array that the journalists of member states of the EU are unable to remember all their obscure foreign names and job titles, let alone to hold them to account.  This is precisely why the newspapers and TV only report the EU laws that destroy the economics of member states after they have been passed, when it is far too late to hold a media campaign to oppose them (as occurs when local Parliaments in London propose banning curved bananas).

The EU is not a free trade union, but is a racist, colonial “protectionist block” which tries to limit trade of member states with countries outside the European Union (for example, Britain’s trade with poor African farmers) by imposing racist EU law-imposed massive trade tariffs to ban the “un-standardized” goods from Africa and America, but to allow trade from within Europe, which sells us overpriced, needlessly “standardized” goods in order to subsidise failed, inefficient, illiberal socialist dictatorships.  The unelected bureaucratic central government (signed by Prime Minister John Major in the notorious Maastricht Treaty) European Union is incompatible with a peaceful, economically stable world as proved by the Ukraine crisis caused by unelected EU Foreign Affairs boss and anti-nuclear propaganda CND fanatic Baroness Cathy Ashton (author of lies in chapter 1 of the 1977 CND book The neutron bomb which led to Carter banning the bomb and thus to the 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan) who pushed the EU into the Ukraine, triggering Putin's invasion of Crimea! Although the 2011 "European Citizens' Initiative" in principle allows any citizen to call for a new Euro law, they must first get a million signatures, so in practice it's an empty promise (if you can get a million signatures, you'll get political support and media attention anyway, so the real the problem is getting attention for unpopular laws to protect us against war-mongering appeasement). Another Clegg-type pro-EU argument is that the EU is banning mobile phone roaming charges in Europe; however this is no use outside the EU and even inside the EU the companies will just increase the normal charges to make up their profit shortfall, so the consumer will end up paying the same overall. The May 2014 UK Readers Digest article on page 99 attacks the EU opponents on the basis that the Dutch "Party for Freedom" (which opposes the EU dictatorship) "favours same-sex marriage and is an enthusiastic supporter of the state of Israel". So now we know the truth: the popular media attacks on the lovers of liberty are motivated by racism and homophobia. Yet, using the tactics of Dr Goebbels, they try to stick smears on their enemies to deflect attention from the truth. But one person is making progress.

British politician, ex-global metal exchange trader (which he did for 20 years) and now leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage who has a German wife, was strongly influenced by reading J. S. Mill’s On Liberty as a child, and he has slammed EU bosses over European crisis. "It's even more serious than economics because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the Euro project is destroyed by the markets before that," Farage ended a speech:

FIGHTING THE NAZIS DICTATORS OF THE EU: Who are you Mr President? Nigel Farage asks Van Rompuy (video below in the European Parliament): Nigel Farage explaining his call to have all EU Nazis and neo-Nazis fired: Nigel Farage explaining that the EU is run by unelected failed far-right wing pseudo-environmentalist and pseudo-pacifist Nazi dictators:

Above: Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, in his 2 April 2014 debate with UK Independence Party Chief Nigel Farage (a rematch of their 26 March debate), waved this 2010 UKIP poster warning of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration disasters in his TV debate, in a lying "smear" attempt to disprove what the poster said, merely by using the left-wing technique of "ridiculing", while ignoring the actual fact that Native Americans did in some cases end up in reservations because they had no proper border controls or nuclear deterrents to prevent invasions.  This left-wing tactic of "tweeting the racist subtext" backfired according to the left-wing Guardian newspaper's ICM poll immediately after the debate! Sophistry always backfires, unless you silence your opponent using Hitler's thugs technique of gas or concentration camps.

Deputy Prime Minister Clegg only had 31% approval, with the entire remaining 69% backing UKIP's leader Nigel Farage!  No wonder we haven't had any unbiased debates on EUSSR communist membership for over 20 years, since Prime Minister John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty, giving away Britain's independence to unelected left-wing lying, overspending bureaucrats in Belgium (the last public UK referendum on Europe 40 years ago was about economic trade in the European Commission, not political control of people's lives by the "European Union" of Soviet Socialist Republics).  Clegg didn't help his case by claiming that "if you want to change something, you must do so from inside it" (this is the argument for joining the devil, the Nazis, or the USSR in order to "reform it from within"!), and by making false slurs: "They see conspiracies everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if Nigel Farage soon tells us that the moon landing was a fake, that Barack Obama is not American, that Elvis is not dead."  These fascist-type, lying racism and moon landing denialism slurs only "work" when you have Gestapo around to silence any rational response. Anyone can see that the Deputy Prime Minister is abusing his power and exploiting racism for his own ends, just as 1930s "pacifists" cashed in on war effects exaggerations to sell lies to Joe Public in the name of guaranteeing peace through disarmament in the face of the Nazi threat to the Jews and genuine libertarians (unlike the Clegg type of pseudo-liberalism).  Slurs are the preferred technique of dictators, who don't have anything factual to say to defend their lies.

The fantasy that Deputy Prime Minister Clegg believes is that the European Union is a guarantee of peace in our time, ignoring the fact that both World Wars were actually caused by Germany's attempt to achieve European Integration in 1914 and 1939, and that:

(1) WWI and WII were due to our lack of a credible war-fighting proved nuclear deterrent in the years 1914 and 1939,
(2) the threat to peace was from the Kaiser in 1914 and Hitler in 1939, who were attempting to impose a dictatorial EU 
(3) Clegg and friends falsely and ignorantly assume that the two World Wars were somehow the fault of "racist" Britain for not joining Germany in the effort to unite Europe in 1914 and 1939, ignoring the immense suffering that all attempts at European Union have always caused, from the Roman Empire to Napoleon!

This topsy-turvy kind of history, used to defend the EUSSR as being somehow a force for peace (when in fact it is the opposite, i.e. triggering the Ukraine crisis by pushing the EU right up to Putin's Western borders), is described as doublethink by Mr George Orwell and by Mr Joe Public:

A YouGov survey found 68 per cent thought Mr Farage had come out on top, with Mr Clegg backed by just 27 per cent.  An ICM poll for the Guardian showed that 69 per cent gave it to Mr Farage, and 31 per cent the Deputy Prime Minister. That was a significantly wider margin than the Ukip leader won by last week, in the first of two debates on Europe. Devastatingly for the Lib Dems, of people who voted for them in 2010, 55 per cent preferred Mr Farage, according to ICM.


WORLD WAR, NUCLEAR WAR AND IMMIGRATION

... Farage mounted a full-throated attack on EU foreign policy and a called for an end to British military intervention. He told the deputy prime minister: "You were absolutely hellbent on getting involved militarily in the war in Syria, and I personally am delighted we didn't go to war in Syria, and we're not going to get involved, I hope, in military conflict in the Ukraine. The British people have had enough of endless foreign military interventions." - Guardian newspaper article.

In September 1938, the nearly 4 million Germans living near the German borders of Czechoslovakia provided Hitler with his excuse to invade, just as last month Putin used the Russians in the Crimean region of the Ukraine as the excuse to invade.  Immigration can cause World War, nuclear war.  Immigration of British into Ireland had created today's divided Ireland, after much terrorism.  The same could be said for all the Middle East tensions and wars between Sunni and Shia Moslem sects, where countries with large immigrant populations had to be held together with the iron fists of dictators like Saddam, Gadaffi, Mubarak, and Assad, turning into brutal civil wars when secret police were disbanded.  Immigration issues also caused the fatal Serbian assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 which provided the Kaiser with the excuse of pushing Austria into declaring war on Serbia, so that Germany had a plausible-excuse for mobilization and war.  In 1923, Greece and Turkey swapped their Christian and Moslem immigrants at great hardship to the relocated peoples, in order to make Greece Christian and Turkey Moslem, to defuse ethnic tensions.  The bottom line is: like a marriage, there are limits of tolerance and trying to force people with totally different social customs to live together in a limited area and in a time of austerity is a fuse for conflict and war.  If you're in an hopeless relationship, go and burn your bridges, or abuse may occur!  You can't live with fascists or reds under the beds if you're a genuine liberty loving democrat.

Farage had been urged by his advisers to appear as an avuncular Ronald Reagan figure, but he became more apocalyptic near the end when he warned that the EU would break up in a violent way if voters across the EU were not given a vote on whether to remain members.

He said: "I want the EU to end but I want it to end democratically. If it doesn't democratically, I am afraid it will end very unpleasantly. We are already, in some countries, beginning to see the rise of worrying political extremism.

"If you take away from people their ability, through the ballot box, to change their futures because they have given away control of everything to somebody else, then I'm afraid they tend to resort to unpleasant means." - Guardian newspaper article.

When the chips go down economically, we're in a worse position now than at any time during the Cold War (we actually had nuclear superiority at the time of the Cuban Missiles Crisis in 1962):

(1) this time Russia is rich from new oil and gas, so it can't be sunk economically like the USSR was by Reagan and Maggie's arms race, since UK and USA have really massive, unprecedented national debts now,

(2) this time the failure of anti-nuclear proliferation treaties have created the Crimean crisis (due to the 1994 withdrawl of nuclear missiles from Ukraine in exchange for a protection treaty of Ukraine's borders including Crimea, signed by UK and USA as well as Russia)

(3) nuclear weapons and ICBM range missiles have been tested successfully by North Korea, which is verging on a new Korean War, and the last Korean War in 1950-3 was only stopped when president Eisenhower's administration threatened to ship atomic weapons to Korea and trained marines in nuclear combat at Nevada nuclear tests. Today we are facing a nuclear North Korea, and probably a nuclear Iran, as well as hostile China due to the Japanese islands that are disputed by China and protected by USA agreement, and a rich Russia backing butcher Assad in Syria, with Moscow protected by ABM and a massive red army

(4) in WWIII, an alliance of North Korea, Iran, Russia and China against the West (UK and USA, forgetting yellow France which capitulated in 1940 and only fought underground resistance during WWII) will soon expend our nuclear stockpiles and then we will be invaded and literally outrun.

"... much of the apocalyptic nuclear rhetoric has been of a mythical nature. It claims to be against violence and nuclear warfare, while at the same time pushing the fear and hysteria that it claims to be against." – Susan Miller

Left wingers are fear-mongering and promoting nuclear hysteria for their own ends. This coincides with nuclear deterrence, so the government largely keeps quiet and doesn't oppose the nuclear hysteria. However, this lying fails: 

1. Hysteria over gas bombs in the 1930s caused British pacifism, which allowed Hitler to rearm without effective opposition (as Kahn says, Hitler's illegal rearmament could and should have been stopped in 1935 or before). 

2. Allowing lies and exaggerations of weapons effects to go unopposed is not only a disproved war-avoiding strategy, it is anti-democratic. 

The pushers of fear and hysteria cater to popular prejudices today just as witchcraft was catered for by media pundits centuries ago.

These people ask rhetorical questions as sneers, then stop you replying. The objective of the rhetorical question is to "ridicule you" for daring to question orthodoxy and dogma. You are then silenced from replying and pointing out the errors and false assumptions implicit in the question.   What happens as a result is that most of the students come away learning to copy the bad habits of the poker-faced orthodoxy-prone teachers, a case of the students learning bad habits. "Do as I say, not as I do", simply doesn't wash. We need teachers in schools who set a good example, not depressed bigots who set a poker-faced dictatorial example, like the old USSR's apparatchik, Andrei "poker faced" Gromeyko!  They're all instruments or apparatchiks of the corrupted science of Marxist-dogma KGB. 

Who cares? That's what everybody said in September 1938 when Hitler just corrected his border with Czechoslovakia to incorporate 4 million Germans who were living in the Sudetenland. Over the next year, however, Germany produced many more aircraft and bombs than Britain, then people began to care, too late. The problem with appeasement is that it encourages aggression. Nobody cares about Ukraine, but they should damn well care about sending Putin a message which says "you can take over the world because we're too yellow to stop you."

Why doesn't Ukraine simply say to the pro-Russian extremists in the East: "If you want to be part of Russia, move to Russia!"  That's what Prime Minister Chamberlain should have said to the Sudetenland Germans in Czechoslovakia near the German border, instead of allowing the Nazis to invade and take over!  (It’s like England annexing Northern Ireland, because some Brits moved there centuries ago, causing the “troubles”.)

Russia using Hitler techniques

Putin is using the propaganda and coercion tactics used by Hitler, indirect threats to retaliate, not direct threats, accompanied by gradual, piecemeal invasions, each of which is supposedly “justified” by some concocted crisis.  Herman Kahn argued the importance of a careful study of this classic tactic in “On Thermonuclear War”, 1960, p. 403: “At no time did Hitler threaten to initiate war against France and England. He simply threatened to ‘retaliate’ ... The technique he used is such an obvious prototype for a future aggressor armed with H-bombs that it is of extreme value ...”  The actual Cold War tactics of sneaky spy defections to Moscow, propaganda, coercion, crisis manipulation, and fear spreading for appeasement (surrender) were developed in ancient times, as documented by Paul Mercer in his 1986 study of CND’s pro-Russian role in the Cold War, “Peace of the Dead: The Truth Behind the Nuclear Disarmers”.

After 1945 Stalin deported the three million surviving Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia to East Germany, but it was a bit late then. If Chamberlain had insisted on that as a solution to Hitler's ranting in September 1938, instead of appeasement, maybe we could have sorted things out.  According to President John F. Kennedy's book about the 1938 crisis, "Why England Slept" (Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1962, page 184), in 1938 and 1939 Germany spent $4 and $4.4 billion on defence, compared to Britain's expenditure of only $1.7 and $1.8 billion.  So September 1938 (Munich crisis) to September 39 (Britain's declaration of war on Germany) was a year wasted, during which the arms gap got wider, not smaller. Britain therefore was not “buying time”, Hitler was gaining an increasing military lead and gaining assets through invasions to avoid the threat of 1923 Weimar Republic-type economic bankruptcy from German overspending, and Hitler was doing all this using all the classic cold war techniques later applied by Russia!

Weapons effects exaggerations, the downplaying of civil defence as hopeless warmongering

“Reliance on The Effects of Nuclear Weapons for valid conclusions has its shortcomings. For example, in the 1954 test series in the Pacific, I was on the deck of the YAG-39 which was on station at about twenty miles from the shot point of a detonation with a yield near ten megatons. The thermal flash did not produce the predicted second degree burn on the back of my neck or indeed any discomfort at all.”

- Dr Carl F. Miller, Dialogue, Scientist and Citizen, vol. 8, combined issues 4-5 (February-March 1966), page 17.


That quotation is from the popular British civil defence book by the British mathematician and computer programmer Peter Laurie, "Beneath the City Streets" (several editions from 1970-1983).

Laurie's book began in 1967, before the UK Civil Defence Corps was closed down by Labour in March 1968, when he was commissioned by the editor of The Sunday Time magazine to write a long scientific article on nuclear weapons effects and civil defence effectiveness, to counter the CND propaganda film made by Peter Watkins for the BBC, called "The War Game". Laurie used Dr Carl F. Miller's writings (Miller's research on nuclear weapons effects at Pacific and Nevada nuclear tests, including measuring the initial radiation one mile from Plumbbob-Diablo in 1957, entailed repeated exposures to very high dose rates, above the damage threshold for DNA repair enzymes, costing his life due to leukemia), together with British Home Office Scientific Advisory Branch civil defence research at both British nuclear tests and in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, on the shadowing of the thermal and radiation effects by modern city skyscrapers, to prove Hiroshima devastation is a thing of the past..

CND hit back with communist party member and CND committee member Phil Bolsover writing the official 1980 and 1982 (two completely revised versions) CND book, "Civil Defence: The Cruellest Confidence Trick", which exaggerated nuclear effects and tried to ridicule civil defence, but ignoring the facts and hyping abused statistics and quotations from ignorant personalities and liars. Then in 1983, left-wing Duncan Campbell wrote "War Plan UK: The Truth About Civil Defence in Britain" which was based on Phil Bolsover's communist USSR lies for propaganda.

The problem is that "science" has always been and always will be abused and manipulated by politics!

Other nuclear war survival news update (1 May 2014):

INR in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from Richard L. Holmes and Stephen W. White, Standardized Unclassified Little Boy and Fat Man Outputs, Los Alamos report LA-UR-13-26113, ADA590626, September 2013

Above: the DS02 total neutron and gamma radiation emissions and their average energies have been published in concise summary form for the first two nuclear weapons dropped in WWII, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions.  Note that 1 mole of neutrons or gamma rays simply means 6.022 x 10^23 of the particles, which is physically equal to the number of neutrons whose combined mass is roughly 1 gram.  (To be more precise, the mass of a neutron differs very slightly from the mass of 1/12 of a carbon-12 atom, which is the exact definition for a gram mole.)  For both weapons, the average neutron energy escaping from the bomb is relatively low compared to the ~1 MeV mean energy of fission spectrum neutrons.  This reduction is due to the neutron scattering by iron in the heavy steel nose forging of the Hiroshima bomb, and attenuation by neutron collision with protons in the TNT products of the Nagasaki implosion system.  Additional scattering and absorption occurs in the air between the bomb and a target, and there is of course geometric dilution of radiation flux as the particles diverge radially while travelling outwards.  In modern Western cities (unlike the predominantly low wooden buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), as recent Los Alamos research proved, tall concrete and steel buildings cause roughly a 100 fold reduction in the free field radiation dose at street level, quite apart from internal shielding effectiveness within any building.

Most of the neutrons and gamma rays arrive before the blast wave, which didn't flatten the concrete buildings near Hiroshima's ground zero in any case.  Buildings on a radial line between you and the fireball absorbs the direct (unscattered radiation), and while scattered radiation can come from various angles, the very fact that the scattered radiation is so spread out causes an additional reduction in intensity, so that there is a large quantitative protection factor.

There is also a new detailed review of high altitude nuclear weapon explosion effects published online in the latest 2014 DTRIAC Dispatch: http://www.dtra.mil/docs/dtriac/dispatch-v3-i4-web-2.pdf

DTRIAC Dispatch includes a regular list of historical invents at the end of an issue, like Leo Szilard's July 1934 secret nuclear "bomb" patent:

Everybody in the nuclear business has heard of Leo Szilard, since Richard Rhodes made him star of his 1986 bestselling history The Making of the Atomic Bomb, a book which is terribly orthodox-dogma on Bohring 1st quantization, the early, simplistic, wrong, non-relativistic, single wavefunction quantum mechanics, which leads to the nonsense of "wavefunction collapse", an artifact of ignoring the multipath interference of 2nd quantization, where electron paths around a nucleus are affected by random and discrete real quantum field interactions rather than the fictional classical Coulomb potential that Bohr understood.  There is no single wavefunction of for an electron in orbit.  It has an infinite number of possible paths, one for each possible interaction of the electron with a random gauge boson in the quantum (not classical) Coulomb field provided by the positive charge in the nucleus.  Each potential interaction contributes a separate wavefunction, so you must integrate over all paths (a path integral) to determine the probability of the classical path (the path of least action) being followed.  Multipath interference then occurs in the calculation of the probability, and this allows for the chance that the electron's motion will be deflected away from the classical path by random field quanta fluctuations.  Bohr's 1st quantization does not quantize the Coulomb field, so it omits the mechanism of multipath interference for indeterminancy.  This is why it leads to false dogmas and endless nonsense speculation about how a single wavefunction collapses when someone is watching Schroedinger's cat or Alain Aspect is measuring polarized photons with "entangled" single wavefunctions.  There aren't any single wavefunctions.  There's a wavefunction amplitude equal exp(iS) for every possible path, an infinite number of possibilities, and all must be summed by a path integral.  "Bell's inequality" presumes the correctness of a single wavefunction per particle, i.e. first quantization.  Bell's statistical test is wrong because he's testing 1st quantization quantum mechanics as one of two possible solutions, completely ignoring 2nd quantization.  Nobody is interested in using path integrals objectively to understand atomic physics.

Rhodes also makes numerous errors of nuclear weapons effects, ignoring the factual evidence for the Hiroshima firestorm in the USSBS report 92, volume 2, and obfuscating fallout (in his 1995 Dark Sun, he claims the fallout was calcium, thus ignoring the basic chemistry of oxidation of metals like calcium in the air), mainly the same kind of groupthink prejudice error which comes from worshipping people who are not as competent as they allege, like Hans Bethe, who helped to cause the Castle-Bravo fallout disaster (the bomb went off at 15 megatons, not 6 megatons as predicted) by his blithering stupidity over the effect of 14 MeV thermonuclear neutrons on Lithium-7, which he knew had a threshold for neutron fission into tritium and helium of only 3-4 MeV, when he claimed at the 35th meeting of the AEC's GAC on 1953 at a secret meeting, with arm-waving arrogance, that the reaction "probably" would not compete with the slowing down of fusion neutrons:

The point is, the more arrogant of these people were not the geniuses they claimed to be, and use secrecy to help maintain an aura of excellence.  It wasn't unpredictable fallout that caused Rongelap to be heavily contaminated.  It was the fact lithium-7, which was 60% of the the lithium in the bomb, had been ignored completely when predicting the yield.  This caused the yield to be 2.5 times the prediction.  Hans Bethe, as Conrad Longmire pointed out in his EMP article published by IEEE in 1978, also caused nearly all the EMP oscilloscopes to be mis-calibrated at the Starfish Prime test in 1962, due to his inaccurate 1957 prediction of high altitude EMP based only on the low-altitude (electric dipole, not magnetic dipole) mechanism, despite evidence of an error in 1958 at Hardtack-Yucca high altitude shot which gave a measured waveform of much shorter duration (higher frequency), and much higher intensity than Bethe's prediction.

Back to Leo Szilard, Rhodes paints him as the hero from the outset, and it is true Szilard patented an idea for nuclear chain reactions in 1934:

Leo Szilard's 4 July 1934 patented nuclear chain reactor device.

“Producing neutrons. SZILARD, L. June 28, 1934, Nos. 19157 and 19721. [Class 39 (i)] A neutron chain reaction generates power and produces radio-active isotopes. The reaction takes place in a mass 3, Fig. 1, comprising indium and beryllium, bromine or uranium. Fast deuterons from a canalray tube 1 bombard a deuterium target 28 to produce initiating neutrons which react with In-115 to produce In-112 and tetra neutrons of mass about 4.014. These tetra neutrons react with the Be, Br or U to produce double the number of simple neutrons, thereby providing a chain reaction. Emerging neutrons transmute a layer 9 to produce radio-active substances. Alternatively, Fig. 3, the initiating neutrons may be produced by passing cathode-rays through a sheet 402 of Pb or U to generate hard X-rays which react with beryllium in the mass 3 (or an inner mass 407) to yield neutrons. The critical thickness of the layer 3 for a self-sustaining chain reaction is stated to be of the order of 50 cms. Tetra neutrons are stated to be produced when neutrons of 100,000 e.v. to 8 m.e.v. energy react with the In-115. Power is obtained by heat exchange from water or mercury passing through cooling tubes 107, 110, 111. Other methods of obtaining the initiating neutrons are described in Specification 440,023.”

Basically, this is complete nonsense: there are no "tetra neutrons".  Szilard had no evidence in 1934 for an atomic bomb, just the idea that if a neutron interaction in which more neutrons are released (along with net energy, since it's no use if you have to fire a 8 MeV neutron into a nucleus and get just 2 neutrons released each of 1 MeV energy), you would have a chemical-like explosive chain reaction.  However, as we know, it takes a fissile material like uranium-235 or plutonium-239, and rate of the reaction and neutron background problems are such that you need fast assembly of the critical mass just prior to the chain reaction being initiated.  Szilard ignored all this.

The useful thing Szilard did for the Manhattan Project which was of immense importance, which Rhodes calls attention to, was to use his background in chemical engineering to help deduce that graphite (pure carbon) initially tested for use as a neutron moderator and discarded was in fact contaminated by the boron electrodes used in the purification process (boron is a strong absorber for slow, thermalized neutrons).  By changing the purification process, therefore, America was able to use cheap graphite moderators with cheap U238 to make plutonium, whereas Germany's nuclear bomb project leader Heisenberg was too clever to get his hands dirty with chemical engineering, and so failed to realize why his carbon was no good as a moderator, thus relying instead on the extremely slow and costly production of heavy water as a moderator in Norway, which was bombed by the allies.  It wasn't nuclear physics that proved Germany's problem, but having a narrow-minded leader.