The Oxford Union has dubbed fake applause onto the videos of John Bolton’s address to the Union. It has not done this for any other speaker.
If you listen to these videos of Bolton itching for war with Iran, you can hear precisely the same burst of ultra enthusiastic applause at the start, fading “naturally” as he begins to speak.
This dubbing in of applause is not used for any other speaker on the Oxford Union website, either before or after Bolton.
Everyone else just gets the actual applause that really existed.
Contrast the presentation of these question answers from Bolton with this from Julian Assange:
One futher interesting feature of the Bolton video is that the students asking questions – who were mostly hostile – are all edited out in favour of fake applause.
I was involved in heated negotiations with the Oxford Union on the transmission of Assange’s address, against attempts not by the students but by the Board of Trustees to block it “on legal grounds”. These conversations were not pleasant. When Assange’s address was finally put out, the sound was completely messed up and remained so for a fortnight, with this comment from the Oxford Union posted underneath:
“
Thanks for your feedback. We are aware there are issues with the audio when playing on mobile devices and we are working on getting this fixed as quickly as possible. The audio can be heard on desktops or with headphones on laptops.
”
I am therefore fascinated by the skill with which the Oxford Union have merged the dying of the fake applause over the start of Bolton’s speaking, when they were technically incapable of a simple straight sound feed of the Assange address.
Bolton is not only banging the drum for neo-con war, he is a war criminal with a direct role in launching the illegal role of aggression in Iraq. His address to the Union was the day before Assange’s speech to the Sam Adams Award at the same venue. Yet not a single one of the students who demonstrated against Assange demonstrated against Bolton.
To take the issue of rape, which was ostensibly the subject of the protest, Bolton’s Iraq War directly caused innumerable rapes. Nobody can know the exact figure, but certainly tens of thousands of rapes, and very many of them were fatal or had the most devastating consequences for the women who suffered. Read this excellent article
Rape is a common weapon of any war; no one knows how many Iraqi women have been raped since the war began in 2003. Most crimes against women “are not reported because of stigma, fear of retaliation, or lack of confidence in the police,” MADRE, an international women’s rights group, wrote in its 2007 report about violence against women in Iraq. Some women, like Khalida, are raped by Iraqi security forces. A 2005 report published by the Iraqi National Association for Human Rights found that women held in Interior Ministry detention centers endure “systematic rape by the investigators.”
They did not demonstrate against Bolton because the mainstream media and establishment have whipped up no hysteria about him. But they were directed to outrage against Assange, a man who has done a great deal to expose war crimes and try to prevent war, because the mainstream media and establishment pushed the useful idiots in that direction with some extraordinarily unconvincing accusations.
I said most of this IN my owN speech to the Sam Adams awards. Strangely the Oxford Union have not posted that speech at all…..
UPDATE
With thanks to Herbie, there is a history of Bolton and false applause. Perhaps this is insisted upon by his minders – who presumably know he doesn’t get real applause outside the Republican Party!
John Goss I don’t wish to and won’t fall out with you on Tony Benn. I too think he ia great orator and has spoken out against injustices but when he says he prefers Obama as being better than Bush or Romney, I give up. He misses the point that anyone is preferable to Bush or Romney. He should have roundly condemned Obama for his war crimes in Libya and Afghanistan and for his Kill by Drone policy.
Nor can I forgive Benn for picking up the phones for Bliar in the 2005 election and for not supporting Lindsey German and Nicholas Wood in this move to have Bliar arraigned for war crimes here.
‘A letter was signed by over 4000 people, including this author, which sought the arraignment of Blair and his cabal for war crimes. It was addressed to Kofi Annan and headed by Tony Benn, president of STWC. A meeting to make a final decision is recorded thus in Tony’s new diary:-
Lindsey German and Nicholas Wood came to see me about the next stage in the campaign on the war crime question, about how we could advance the cause of the letter. There’s been no coverage in the press, although Kofi Annan has replied. We went on to discuss the whole question really of whether we were demanding a war crimes tribunal. My view is that you shouldn’t do that. I think it’s a complete waste of effort trying to put Blair and Bush on trial : (a) it won’t happen; (b) it’s so negative: ( c) it’s all about personalities.’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-principle-in-britain/8141
I cannot account for the trolls here as you know. One of them on this thread described Bolton as ‘intelligent’. So intelligent that he endorsed Romney. (Wikipedia) Bolton is described as a paleo-con there, not a neocon!
As to Tony Benn, he and George Galloway talk more sense about the neo-con project, its banking scandal, its neo-colonial scandal, its anti-Muslim scandal, its global power scandal, than any other people in politics. But neither of them get or like Islam.
“if we are forced by the Iranian leadership to take military action against Iran”
I thought that was an amusing typo at first and you meant “Israeli leadership” but then:
“…will be because the leadership in Iran want to retain the weapon of nuclear ambiguity (i.e. we will be doing it for not cooperating with the IAEA over a 10 year period or so)”
It appears to have escaped your notice that the Iranian nuclear programme is the most scrutinised and least ambiguous nuclear programme on the planet. Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA since the day it signed the Non-proliferation treaty. It is those countries who have not signed the treaty and are not inspected at all who are pursuing a policy of “nuclear ambiguity” – India, Israel and Pakistan in particular.
I think that what you call “ambiguity” here is really just your own neo-con paranoia but it is not clear to me why you are so fixated on Iran in this regard.
John Bolton is obviously an intelligent man. Whether his view or beliefs have validity and deserve respect is another question. It does seem disturbing that the OU has to resort to the tricks of trash TV.
Even poor old Tony Benn is not safe in pious Mary’s black and white world of sanctimony and faux indignation. Whoever next? Gorgeous George? Even Craig himself better watch out.
Politics seems to be a zero-sum game for her and many others on the fringes of the political spectrum. Tricky and difficult propositions like compromise and a rational cost-benefit analysis of candidates are not for them, better just to shriek on the sidelines.
CE
Three cheers for Mary’s black and white world.
You are one of those analysts of the entrails of spin, conk-clonkers on lamposts in the smog of the dirty game of politics, sorry for mixing my metaphors. There is nothing worse than those who mock the light of human conscience because they can see a cover for their dishonesty in the mainstream fog of lies.
Only in the light of truth can we see the dappled, colourful, beautiful world we live in.
Mary, I wouldn’t fall out with you either. Your comments and links are too valuable for that. But we can differ. I can’t blame Benn for how the US political system works. I agree with you over Obama’s drone attacks, wars, failure to keep promises and believe he has really let down Dr Martin Luther King who fought for black rights. In the same way Margaret Thatcher let down the suffragette movement which fought for rights for women. What we have is what we have. Right now we have another woman weened on odium in the form of Theresa May – an out and out racist. I bet we agree on that!
Guano,
If you are attempting to argue that Maria Roumine’s being Jewish inclines her to being a neo-con you are absolutely wrong. I don’t care whether you wish to define Jewish people ethnically or religiously, and I don’t care about your own antecedents, your remarks have over the years (and a variety of different names you use) displayed considerable prejudice against Jewish people. I recall you were banned for a time under another name.
The students no longer control the Oxford Union. It is appalling that this has happened without giving rise to serious dissent, but all “political” decisions are taken by the Board of Trustees. Now they are serious neo-cons and the moving force is the former Head of Merril Lynch Asia Pacific who is linked to “security studies” organisations and is a long term MI6 “asset”.
Maria Roumine did a very brave and courageous job of standing up to these people so the Assange talk could go ahead. So you are quite wrong to keep hinting that her being Jewish is in some sense a problem.
Apparently Bolton has form in the fake applause department. I’m just speculating here but I think it’s certainly arguable that he needs the addition of fake applause because real human beings don’t agree with the garbage he talks.
There’s some real applause and cheering in this clip too, but it’s for the veteran who talks sense. See if you can tell the difference:
https://www.examiner.com/article/2-minute-video-fox-edits-fakes-applause-for-john-bolton-pro-war-statement
Perhaps Bolton has a clause in his media contracts that insist fake applause be applied to his witterings. That would indicate that he knows he’s talking garbage. That’s the noble lies thing again. Ultimately the real problem is corporate media itself. Without this fake media and its replacement with real discourse then these liars wouldn’t get away with half the stuff they do.
Reminds me of the revolutions brought about by the invention of the printing press.
Corporate media is a kind of inverted world where real world dangerous trolls are actively assisted by the moderators.
Craig/Mods Could we have an “Ignore” button please. The halfwit trolls are getting to be a pest.
@MJ
“It appears to have escaped your notice that the Iranian nuclear programme is the most scrutinised and least ambiguous nuclear programme on the planet. Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA since the day it signed the Non-proliferation treaty.”
It may be the most scrutinised but it is the one we have the most doubts about: the contradictions in it are startling; the lack of cooperation and the huge number of meetings at which no progress is made are mind boggling – Mr Nackaert’s visit this last week to get access for the nth time to Parchin has again yielded nothing.
The contradictions include:
1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)
2. Iran suffers from earthquakes: it is the last place you want to have a nuclear power station if the safety of the Iranians themselves is a consideration
3. There are no good ECONOMIC reasons for Iran to do uranium enrichment itself: it is cheaper to buy in the enriched uranium from other countries who for historical reasons perhaps have a competitive advantage (other countries benefit from economies of scale?).
So why does Iran want to do its own enrichment? It either wants to gain the know-how or it is afraid of being held hostage by overseas suppliers who could punish it by withholding supplies e.g. for human rights abuses. The additional cost in doing its own enrichment is a useful indicator of how desperate Iran is to do its own enrichment (for whichever of the 2 possible reasons). My guess is the difference in cost is quite large, so Iran is desperate. It is probably a safe bet to assume both reasons have played a part in the leadership’s decision.
The lack of cooperation with the IAEA I think I have dealt with. There are unanswered questions, and the Iranians are not granting access to the scientists who have the answers.
India, Pakistan and Israel already have the nuclear bomb, so there is nothing we can do about that, but Iran does not, so we may be able to stop them getting one (hopefully through negotiation, but realistically probably not, since the regime relies on a common enemy to create national unity around a Government that otherwise would not command a lot of respect.
“Craig/Mods Could we have an “Ignore” button please. The halfwit trolls are getting to be a pest.”
One has been provided, it is on your keyboard with “PgUp” written on it.
Intelligent is too complimentary a word to assign to Bolton, a dishonest cold blooded warmonger, he lacks intelligence where it counts most, in the heart.
And his little moustache is as much a gimmick to distract from his twisted activity as anything else, works for some anyway.
Benn cant be beyond criticism, although he quit parliament he lived it for a long time and stuck it out. Even speaking out against wrongs, he must have ignored signs and aspects of his peers natures, and favoured and been seduced by some, to not have been cast out. Maybe most people who are working for the good amongst the bad lot, cant actually make out the worst of it. On the other hand, by not regarding Obama as total conman, Benn is trying to make out the best of ..someone. But i dont believe him either now. Obamas only defence is that he has to go along with shit, he talked up a lot of hope, and has so far signed most of it away. So far he is more of peace prized conman than his Texan predecessors.
Interesting article on Gove’s history curriculum which too seems to come from the noble lies agenda.
I think Gove is another of those whose output might benefit from lashings of fake applause.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-gove-curriculum
I agree that the President of the Oxford Union being Jewish has no relevance to the dubbing of applause on to Bolton’s videos. Do we know who was responsible for doing it?
The JC claim her here. Isn’t she gorgeous!
http://www.thejc.com/97741/the-hebrew-speaking-head-oxford-union
“1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)”
The country with the largest gas reserves, Russia, has nuclear power stations. The country with the fifth largest, America, has nuclear power stations.
Iran needs to export their gas, it’s their main export industry, their main way of getting foreign currency. They can feed developing nations like Pakistan and India. Iran and Pakistan have just signed a deal for a pipeline to carry 21.5 million cubic meters a day.
Even Saudi Arabia is planning to build 16 nuclear power stations over the next 20 years.
It doesn’t sound a very happy ship or does this sort of thing go on in all university student unions?
http://oxfordstudent.com/2012/05/17/union-officials-probed/
“Later this month the union will be hosting a debate whose subject is, she said, “close to my heart”.
Its title is “This house believes Israel is a force for good in the Middle East” and JC editor Stephen Pollard will be one of its proposers.”
Oh dear. They’ll be needing to go heavy on the noble lies, glittering prizes and fake applause to pull that one off!!
The brightest and the best, eh.
“It may be the most scrutinised but it is the one we have the most doubts about: the contradictions in it are startling”
The most startling contradiction is in that sentence. And who is “we”? Count me out.
“1. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world (no need of civilian nuclear power?)”
Perhaps it wants to eek out its cash-cow and use as little gas as possible domestically. It’s investing for the time when the gas runs out. Norway does the same. It uses practically none of its North Sea gas and relies instead on hydroelectric power for domestic consumption. Iran doesn’t have the geography for that.
“2. Iran suffers from earthquakes: it is the last place you want to have a nuclear power station if the safety of the Iranians themselves is a consideration”
Ditto the USA and Japan. Let’s invade them too.
“3. There are no good ECONOMIC reasons for Iran to do uranium enrichment itself: it is cheaper to buy in the enriched uranium from other countries who for historical reasons perhaps have a competitive advantage (other countries benefit from economies of scale?)”
You’ve got to start somewhere. Where’s your sense of enterprise? Iran probably wants to muscle into the very market you describe. It wants to become an exporter of nuclear services and products. It is seeking to achieve, through economies of scale, the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by others. That’s why it’s producing so much uranium at only medical and power production levels of enrichment. Probably.
I see that it has been held Herbie. Fancy inviting Perle! What’s the matter with them?
This is by Hoffman of the JNF. If you have ever been at a meeting supporting Palestinians when he has been present, you will know what a disruptive and unpleasant presence he can be for the participants.
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/oxford-union-triumph-near-40-say-israel-force-good-middle-east
I see, Mary
And the scores on the doors:
“The motion ‘This House Believes That Israel is a Force For Good in the Middle East’ was defeated 132-208 at the Oxford Union Debating Society”
Just as I thought. There ain’t enough noble lies, fake applause or glittering prizes on the planet to pull that one off.
But that don’t stop the noble liars trying to spin it anyway:
Here’s how the JC reports the defeat:
“Oxford Union Triumph – Near 40% say “Israel Force for Good in Middle East””
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/oxford-union-triumph-near-40-say-israel-force-good-middle-east
So what were the 61% saying…
From Rioumine’s twitter, the reader could assume she goes along with Bremer’s view of the Iraq war and occupation. If so, indefensible.
Feb 5Maria Rioumine@MariaRioumine
Paul Bremer: “The fact that we withdrew our troops makes it less certain that Iraq will remain one country.”
Feb 5Maria Rioumine@MariaRioumine
Bremer: “By the time we left, all the economic indicators had gone up.”
Feb 5Maria Rioumine@MariaRioumine
Paul Bremer @OxfordUnion: transitioning from dictatorship to democracy.
https://twitter.com/MariaRioumine
~~~~
Who will they have there next? Bliar? Bush? Kissinger? Powell? Rumsfeld?
Mary
Actually I think you have the spirit in which she tweeted those 180 degrees wrong. They have a good balance of speakers. Galloway recently, Peter Tatchell in the Israel debate (brilliant I hear), Assange, my humble self.
Neo-con or Paleo-con, they’re all atavistic troglodytes. They survive only because of their tribe, and they are the most intelligent of that sub-group. However, that intellect is only significant within that dynamic of intelligence. It’s like they are the most intelligent members of the Neanderthals, and we know what became of that crowd.
Uh, oh. ‘Tribe’ was meant in the sense of a generic sub-group of like minded persons of that political persuasion.
Craig, Mary quoted Rioumine from the JC above in which described the topic for debate, “Israel is a force for good in the Middle East” as a subject “that is close to my heart.”
I wonder whether she was passionately in favour or against the said proposition?
@ Mary :
I suppose I’m the “troll” who called John Bolton intelligent?
I’m beginning to lose any residual sympathy I might have harboured for you (the same sort of sympathy that any normal person might have for Tony Benn, btw), because I’m beginning to think that under that Saintly exterior you’re a pretty unpleasant person (I shan’t say – yet – with fascistic tendencies).
A troll has been described as someone who disrupts a blog; (whatever that means); have you extended the definition to include someone who has opinions like “John Bolton is an intelligent man”? No details, but I certainly know a great deal more about Bolton than you do, and my opinion stands. I also wrote that the uses he puts his intelligence to are of course up for debate, but naturally you didn’t see that, or pretended not to.
I think I shall have to renew the very close attention I paid to your vapourings and respond accordingly.
PS – thank you for your response to Mary, CE, exactly my sentiments as well.
Daniel, James Purnell would definitely agree that “Israel is a force for good”.
http://www.redressonline.com/2013/02/arch-zionist-gets-top-bbc-strategy-job/
Herbie at 1.29 pm. What do you think the chances are of getting Gove to agree to including Robert Tressell’s “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” as an ‘A’ level option?
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/michael-gove-secretary-of-state-for-education-introduce-robert-tressell-onto-the-a-level-syllabus
And, by the way, why so much attention to, and indignation about, the President of the Oxford Union?
Who gives a damn what he/she says or opines?
The Oxford Union was a busted flush when I was up, trading on its past glories; its officers got themselves elected for career reasons (Robert Jackson, Edwina Curry née Cohen, the list is endless)and most of the attendees joined for the other faciliteis the Union offered and if they went to the debates it was for entertainment. Most normal undergrads paid no attention to it then and I imagine even fewer do so now.
Craig
I suspect you didn’t like being called a troll against Allah.
Your comments frequently mention zionist banksters, and the lady in question is clearly a zionist in the Matthew Gould meaning of the word.
[Re: Comment: “Chris2 16 Feb, 2013 – 1:08 pm The fake anger generated in the campaign against Assange is disturbing. One of the strangest examples has been in the “debate” in the “SWP” in which the dissident faction, led by Richard Seymour, have insisted
that it is a mark of socialist merit to smear Assange and, indeed, George Galloway. The SWP has become a cheerleader for imperialism not only in this case but in Libya and Syria too.”]
“Personally, I always feel a touch of sadness and a sense of nostalgia when the state and their forces push the ‘self-destruct’ button within the far left, such as in parties like the late, occasionally great SWP. In the face of the brutal, tortuous, turgid stranglehold of the machine, humble, honest party members are so busy at the coal face. Dealing with all the interventions and consequent disruptions. They seem near incapable of taking a step back, and – with fresh eyes – seeing and tackling – what is going on. State subversion of Britain’s political parties, campaign organisations, civic society and activist groups is a lamentable state of affairs.”