John Bolton’s Fake Applause 222

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…..


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!

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

222 thoughts on “John Bolton’s Fake Applause

1 4 5 6 7 8
  • MJ

    “Daniel Janner, of 36 Essex Street, has not followed his father Greville Janner MP into the Labour party”

    He did at first. He was Labour candidate for Bosworth in the 1983 general election.

  • Mary

    My typing is so bad these days, I just got Daniel Jammer up. He is a German born Israeli multi millionaire who was swindled by the high flying Mr Levene!

    Daniel Janner has also been a Tory donor influenced by his friendship with Gove.

  • N_

    @ Arbed – thank for the link to the Dearlove video, which I have just watched.

    I was quite taken aback by Dearlove’s apparent stupidity. Since one market for such a speech at the Cambridge Union (albeit only one of several) is future senior SIS officers, it comes across that SIS want people who are clever, but not too clever, and above all, people who are of the right sort and feel a hatred of a very ‘superior’ sort towards those who spill the beans and rock the boats of the privileged. I mean how else can we read his oh-so-urbane venomous spew of adjectives aimed at Assange – “unwise”, “undignified”, “idiotic”? Tell us, Mr Master of Pembroke, what’s your argument there? And of course, Assange’s activities have not been “in the public interest”. As if exposing war criminals isn’t always in the general interest. As if Dearlove isn’t himself a war criminal who ought to be in the dock at the Hague. Can’t he meet his opponents’ arguments? What an arrogant pillock.

    He also tells his young audience that people have got to be stupid to think the Swedish government can be susceptible. Such people don’t “understand” how “government relations” work. What a comedian! Does he tell that to talent-spotters at Cambridge or Oxford, when they’re looking at the personal files of possible state-sector recruitment fodder from Sweden or elsewhere? Does he say ‘Yes, you’re right, that chap probably will be in the top 5 in the Swedish state within 10 years, but don’t cultivate him, because that isn’t how government relations work?’ 🙂

    And the head of the CIA’s London station sits on the UK Joint Intelligence Committee…and hundreds of British servicemen and women have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, countries with regimes which were no threat whatsoever to Britain. Dearlove knows that! He was one of the filthy creeps who helped push the lie that they were a threat.

    But of course…no government is ever subject to outside influence… Have I got that right? Do I get 10 out of 10 for not being “stupid”, Mr Dearlove?

    As for Princess Diana…never mind the line ‘don’t think about that, because there are so many theories’. Cars don’t disappear into thin air in one of the most surveilled areas in the world. Nor do people with huge levels of carbon monoxide poisoning appear unaffected on video footage. That Princess Diana was murdered is obvious…oh no, look out, Daniel, some of those ‘conspiracy theories’ are swooping down to get you…best warn people about them! 🙂

  • Jonangus Mackay

    Lest we forget. Greville Janner MP, QC was subject of extremely grave allegations in a notorious Midlands court case widely enough reported in 1991. No obvious impediment to his being made Lord Janner in 1997. Confess myself as baffled into cynicism now as I was then. Google’s topmost & detailed link on the topic suffers a loony surfeit of capitals:

  • N_

    Who funds Femen? Jed Sunden is one name.

    Their activity is inscribed into conflicts involving Russian Orthodoxy in Russia (see Boris Berezovsky), Orthodoxy outside of Russia, including in the Ukraine and Turkey, and also the Roman Catholicism and divisions therein, in both western Europe and, through gay marriage, the United States.

    That’s quite a punch.

    Presbyterians, you’re next! (Joke!)

    They seem to get their visas sorted out very quickly. I wonder how long it would take most other Ukrainians to get themselves to Notre Dame in Paris if they, oh, if they wanted to take their tops off for the cameras because a pope had announced his abdication, or something like that.

    Have Femen done anything against any other religions than Christianity (which seems to be their favourite target) and occasionally Islam (with such slogans as “Muslim women, let’s get naked”, which doesn’t exactly strike me as a ‘liberatory’ slogan of solidarity with their ‘sisters’).

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    I’d heard he was running, but didn’t know it was part of his strategy….

    “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange regards his bid to become an Australian senator as a defense against potential criminal prosecution in the United States and Britain, a news website reported on Monday.

    Assange spoke to The Conversation website at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he was granted asylum in June to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex crime allegations.

    If he wins a Senate seat at elections on Sept. 24, Assange told the website that the U.S. Department of Justice would drop its espionage investigation rather than risk a diplomatic row.

    The British government would follow suit, otherwise “the political costs of the current standoff will be higher still,”Assange told the website.”

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    In light of an ailing Chavez, Correa is emerging as the dominant voice. I fear for him and his people.

    “”In this revolution the citizens are in charge, not capital,” the leftist U.S.-trained economist said after winning 56.9 percent of the vote Sunday against 23.8 percent for his closest challenger, longtime banker Guillermo Lasso.”

    Traditional Capitalism, which holds a gun to our heads, is dying just as the failed Soviet experiment.

    We visited Grand Canyon last week. Theodore Roosevelt is not your typical Republican. Thanks to his efforts, this indescribably awesome venue was saved from commercialism in the early 20th century, and thrives with over a million visitors every year. Where has the long-term vision gone?

  • Fred

    “Shane Bauer etc (The 3 American hitch-hikers). Mr Levinson is still a hostage (the American who disappeared on Kish Island). The British sailors.”

    But there is no evidence that Mr Levinson is in Iran, there is evidence he isn’t. The Americans who strayed onto Iranian territory seem to have faired a lot better than many inmates of Guantanamo who were plucked out of their own countries by America and taken there.

    As for the British sailors who went into Iranian territorial waters, I’d hardly call being kept in a hotel for a few days being held hostage.

    In each case they went into Iranian territory, not like those from Afhanistan and Pakistan who have been kidnapped by America and held without trial for years, including four Iranians. There was no illegal rendition involved.

    As for the rest you seem overly occupied by the internal matters of Iran. As how repulsive and unnatural we in the west might find them they are a matter for the Iranians. You will notice that when I criticise America it is for the things they do to other countries.

  • doug scorgie

    Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)
    18 Feb, 2013 – 12:43 am

    You say:

    “…hey Dougie, you recently accused me of having an agenda. I asked you to tell me what you thought it was. Of course you remained silent.”

    Yes I think you do have an agenda which is to disrupt this blog with your nit-picking and childish abuse of other posters.

    You don’t address the issues, which are discussed in this blog, in an intellectual and logical manner. Possibly, because you are right-wing and as such have an aversion to the truth, you rely on spin and fiction.

    Then you say:

    “…have you got off your backside yet and found the passages in those political memoirs and accounts referring to the use of behavorial pyschologists [sic] by political parties?”

    You are the one that first referred to the existence of such books but you refuse to name them. Why should I waste my time searching for books that don’t exist?

    If they did exist you would be shouting from the rooftops that you were right and I was wrong. I suspect your refusal to name the books in really a delaying tactic while you search yourself for a book that might back you up. It’s taking you a long time.

  • Jemand


    Off topic by me, as usual.

    A news report tonight announced that Dutch MP Geert Wilders is coming to Australia after having been banned from entry previously. This announcement comes only days after an Australian senator, Nick Xenophon, was banned from entry into Malaysia, ostensibly for security reasons but widely reported as a restriction on his participation in discussions related to democracy in the country. The deportation of Xenophon has been roundly, and rightfully, condemned having brought into question the commitment of Malaysia’s government to transparency and genuine democracy. What is the difference between Australia banning Wilders and Malaysia banning Xenophon? Very little. Both men seek to stimulate discussion among ordinary people about important ideas that affect our ways of life and the above governments want to prevent those discussions from taking place.

    Wilders’ impending visit is being protested here and the focus of objections is on the subject matter of his speaking engagements – his warning that immigration of muslims brings a certain risk of growing Islamic domination with attendant problems. His criticism of both Islam and the behaviour of some muslims has been described as so-called “hate-speech”.

    The news report I watched showed a group of protesters with one of them saying that “hate-speech is not free-speech”. This caused me to question whether criticism of anything can be regarded as “hate-speech” and therefore disqualified from legal provisions and community attitudes that traditionally defend free speech. In otherwords, whether criticism can be selectively outlawed.

    I found the below pdf document by Benjamin Bull that seemed to connect this contemporary move to enact “hate-speech” legislation with the concept of “Newspeak” as depicted in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. This got me thinking about the relationship between language, thinking and ideas, and about the strategic manipulation of language to advance the political agendas of different segments of society. There can be no doubt that ideas and attitudes are embedded in a language and that a language influences the way we think by providing us with a symbolic framework that allows us to construct complex ideas. These ideas are often at odds with each other and competing in a process of discussion, argument and *criticism*. Without *criticism*, discussion is reduced to a banal exchange of pleasantries.

    We engage in a hell of a lot of “hate-speech” on Craig’s blog with ongoing battles that openly antagonise, *criticise*, insult and smear various commentators. To his credit, Craig has resisted occasional requests to gag some commentators who take advantage of the liberal environment that he has provided for our collective benefit. As a result of Craig’s refusal to ban “hate-speech” (apart from cunning attempts to introduce an anti-semitic tone to the blog in order to discredit it), we enjoy a level of “free speech” here that we cannot enjoy on any other popularly read website anywhere else and in the process are able to develop our understanding of big picture issues. 

    But free speech, as we know it here, is now very much under threat from certain members of society who frequently purport to knowing what is best for humanity. This politically active and well connected alliance invented the Newspeak term “hate-speech” to selectively replace the once reputable and intellectually useful word “criticism” in order to establish a form of logic that equates criticism with social unrest and thereby a justification to introduce laws that stifle public discussion. I don’t think that’s right. In fact, I know it to be wrong.

    I personally don’t need Geert Wilder to inform me of the socio-political implications of muslim immigration. But others might. I despair at the puzzling ignorance and emotional reactions of otherwise intelligent and educated people whenever *criticism* is made of an ideology to which they are not subscribers. And then the hypocrisy they display when they spew genuine hatred for supporters of certain political ideas.

    Let’s keep speech free.

    –  –  –

    Orwell, Newspeak, Christianity, Homosexuality, Islam, Geert Wilders

    Wilders might be prosecuted for hate speech in Australia –

    Australian Senator banned from entry into Malaysia –

    Transcript of Wilders’ interview with ABC Lateline’s Tony Jones (who misdescribed Indonesia)

    A new way of speaking for a new way of thinking –

  • Anon


    I think, having watched the video, it is very likely Dearlove knows not only that he is being filmed but also exactly where the covert camera is. If you watch it closely enough there are enough clues. And no I’m not a spook last time I checked 🙂

    I could guess further that he knew that the lady handing out leaflets at the beginning (and who asked the question at the end) was connected to those filming. Heck he probably even knows their names. The mysterious 5 minute delay mentioned at the start might even be connected but that’s a guess. I’d put money on him knowing where the camera was though. Not too much money perhaps but I think it would be worth a tenner.

  • glenn

    Ben Franklin: The Grand Canyon is the one place that quite literally took my breathe away – it left me gasping for air upon seeing it for the first time. The scale of it takes a few moments to take in – you look at it, and think you’ve understood the size of it. Then you realise it actually goes on a lot further than first thought… then realise it goes much, much further still.

    Did you make it down to the river? Heck of a walk, that. Did it with a gallon of water in each hand, didn’t want to take any chances.

    As Jemand said, Yellowstone is also a spectacular place to visit.

  • Ex Pat

    @ N_ 10.16 am.

    See text – ‘D.435’ –

    ‘Norway’s Terror as Systemic Destabilization: Breivik, the Arms-for-Drugs Milieu, and Global Shadow Elites,’ by Peter Dale Scott, 22nd August, 2012 – Japan Focus –

    It is actually linked from Peter Dale Scott’s politics page – the second ‘Breivik’ link – ‘D.435.’ The first is audio – ‘A.66.’

    A man who identifies his links by code number. Now there’s a dedicated information warrior!

    Peter Dale Scott –

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Glenn; Haven’t seen you in a while. No, didn’t make it down to the River. My partner and I both have bad knees, but will return for the Mule trip. Carlsbad Caverns (New Mexico) is next on our game plan. I last saw Yellowstone in 1967. It’s on our bucket list. Have you been to Yosemite?
    It also rocks. Each venue needs to be visited for a week, to be sure you see everything.

    The National Park system is truly a gift for everyone, but try to stay away in the summer. It’s like putting several dozen kidneys in just one pie.

    Jemand; Thanks for the BBC tip.

  • glenn

    Ben: Good to see you again too. Carlsbad Caverns was also pretty spectacular! There’s a campsite next to it which was a bit grim and unfriendly, but the caverns themselves are unbelievable.

    Yes – been to Yosemite several times. It might be best to see it in mid to late Spring, actually – the snow has really started to melt by then, so the waterfalls are at their best.

    Good thing that gun-grabbing communist Muslim O’Bomber has allowed everyone the freedom to take their guns into the National Parks now, eh? So these days, when you encounter a AK-47 wielding crazed jihadist coming you in these parks, all you have to do is tell the wife & kids to duck, pull out your shooting-iron, and open fire.

  • LastBlueBell

    @Jemand 6:23pm

    Interesting post. Just one thing that struk me when reading through your thoughts, is in regard to the apparent decline in violence, and the continous expansion of what we define as “violence”, that Steven Pinker argues for in his book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”.

    My point of connection,

    That many people today appear not to be able to differentiate an attack on an argument from an attack on the individual, and therefore view such criticism as violence against persons,

    and by that categorisation, lets the same strong underlying moral processes that has so successfully reduced the latter, to bear on the former.

    Not to in any way deny the existence, or the damages caused by the wast amounts of direct, or thinly veiled personal attacks that exist everywhere on the internet, not least on this blog.

    But in doing so, two powerfull societal forces or concepts are put in a percived direct conflict with each other, and I am wondering it this is not one of the levers used to justify encroachment into the critical foundation of “free” speech.

  • Anon


    For all I know you’re “retired” MI5, Craig is deep cover and I’m Oliver North and barking mad. All I can say is that cunning linguist Habbabkuk had better watch out!

    You have to laugh sometimes I try to remind myself.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Glenn; Are you in the US? Yes, spring is good at Yosemite. Unfortunately we are waiting for the Hanta viral rodents to dissipate. We try to schedule a little later than Spring because of the Strawberry Music Festival which occurs twice per year. September is the best bet as the May event sometimes gets the outdoor fete some inconvenient rain. If you haven’t been to Washington State, the San Juan Islands and Deception Pass are must-sees.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    BTW, Glenn; On your gun thing, just an aside; We took the Grand Canyon Express from Williams, AZ, and I highly recommend. The entire state is an ‘open-carry’ and it’s funny to see ‘No Firearms’ signs outside the local pubs. Heh.

  • Jemand

    “Good thing that gun-grabbing communist Muslim O’Bomber has allowed everyone the freedom to take their guns into the National Parks now, eh? So these days, when you encounter a AK-47 wielding crazed jihadist coming you in these parks, all you have to do is tell the wife & kids to duck, pull out your shooting-iron, and open fire.”

    Ranger Ned – So let me get this straight. The bear came after you?

    Visitor – Yes.

    Ranger Ned – And you shot him from over 300 yards away with a fully automatic military assault rifle?

    Visitor – I told you, I have a bad leg.

    Ranger Ned – And those two dead hitchikers in the back of your pickup? They came after you as well, I suppose.

    Visitor – I also have asthma. They were joggers. Yes, they came after me. They can run fast, you know.

    Ranger Ned – So you shot both of them?

    Visitor – No, I hit one in my F150 and shot the ninja.

    Ranger Ned – You mean you shot the woman in the black hijab. And ran over the old guy with the blue t-shirt.

    Visitor – Is that what ninjas call it? Yeah. She was waving her arms frantically like in those kung fu ninja movies. It was terrifying. And the guy was wearing a shirt with “I’m a Terrorist with a Large Bomb”. Terrifying.

    Ranger Ned – Actually, it says “I’m a Tourist with a Large Bum”. We sell those and other amusing items at the park giftshop.

    Visitor – It must have been his accent. Look, I told you I have asthma, it affects my hearing.

    Ranger Ned – Ok. Well, I’m going to overlook the bear and the dead hitchikers. But I’m going to have to infringe you for putting holes in my 4WD.

    Visitor – Sorry. I thought you were LAPD.

  • Jemand

    @Lastbluebell 8.05p

    “.. That many people today appear not to be able to differentiate an attack on an argument from an attack on the individual, and therefore view such criticism as violence against persons,
    and by that categorisation, lets the same strong underlying moral processes that has so successfully reduced the latter, to bear on the former.”

    – – –

    I would describe it differently. True, people are so emotional and irrational that they confuse an attack on an idea with an attack on the person expressing that idea. Geert Wilders makes the distinction clear, as do I – not that anyone usually wants to acknowledge that. But interpreting speech against an ideology as violence is taking it too far. Certainly, people make these kinds of interpretations but they’re obviously overreacting maybe even deliberately to justify an escalation and resort to actual violence in defence of their ideology. I don’t know about the claimed decline in violence you alluded to by that author. I think violence is like global warming or cooling. It goes up here, it goes down there and overall it is either up or down depending on the methodologies with which you measure it.

  • karel


    thanks for an interesting link. I am looking forward to the verdict. Please keep us informed about any future developments. Amusing, how the establishment gets cought in the web of its own laws.


    why to bother about the fake applause to Bolton? A fake like him does not deserve anything else than a fake applause. Hence, everything is as it should be. I suspect that even Boltons moustache is something he has just glued on .

  • BrianFujisan

    Karel, i suspect the Point being that, Bolton gets enhanced Fake support ( applause ) = Julian. A, is all but silenced, = the organized protest of Julian A, compared to No visible protest of Bolton

    a wee bit of the difference between War mongers, and supporters of peace/human rights. That surly is important pionts for Craig to have made

  • karel

    to N-
    as a counterweight to the infamous Femen gang, it may surpise you that only last week, I founded a new movement called the “Semen”. Its main purpose is to spray everything sacred and everybody holding a public office with a hot ejaculate. New members are wellcome but the admission criteria are very strict. You have to hit a keyhole (the classical one normally used by peeping Toms)from the distance of two meters and a trace of the sperm has to be visible on the other side of your door. Please have a try in the privacy of your own home and very soon you will discover how difficult it is. Any donations, to be used for a good purpose, are wellcome.

  • karel


    that is life Brian, that is life. I have been through all that at various conferences and my pulse no longer quickens when exposed to this kind of manipulation. Not such a long time ago there was quite a respectable profession in France called “les claqueurs”. These misers, stategially seated in a theatre or a concert hall, were payed to start applauding whenever their chief gave them a signal (dropping a newspaper or a handkerchief). perhaps OU is a carrier of this proud tradition of claqueurs.

    To be honest it is the OU that decides who is a war criminal and who is a decent man.

1 4 5 6 7 8

Comments are closed.