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 5 6 7 8
  • karel

    having read you “explanation” again, I have the impression, but would like to be assured that I am entirely wrong, that you are trying to teach me logic. Very commendable, Brian and a really good try but I wish you used the correct symbols.

  • BrianFujisan

    A certain amount of logic could be useful if applied with human conscience…Those pesky Vulcans, but it does seem to be the case, that no humans with a conscience rule Anymore.

    I don’t quite agree that Bolton deserves ANY applause Fake or Not. And it certainly is not as it should be..(fabricated )

    I respect that you have done battle at various conference’s Karel..Its a shame how they work to Weaken our pulse, and wear good souls like you, and Craig down, But Please don’t lose heart on it all

  • glenn

    @Ben: No longer in the US, mate. Did visit Washington State though, but may I recommend the Arches National Park? It has an outstanding collection of natural structures, almost unbelievable to see. It is in Utah though, I warn you. Not that they’re bad people there, but it’s kind of tough to get a drink. (Your best bet is to crash a private members’ bar, and with any luck someone there will sign you in as their personal guest. Buy them a couple of rounds, and everyone’s happy.) Bryce Canyon is also surpassing in natural beauty if you’re in Utah. All in all, it’s one of the most incredible states.

  • Mary

    No irony whatsoever. The Mons Hall at the Royal Military Academy has been refurbished using a £3m donation from Bahrain and will be renamed the King Hamad Hall in a ceremony which Hamad will attend. How can this country sink any lower as they grovel to these oil rich dictators?

    In the same report – The military academy, located in Surrey also received a £15-million donation from the United Arab Emirates to build an accommodation block, which will be named after the UAE’s founding father, the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan.

    In a link on the same page, there is another report of more oppression in Bahrain.

    17.02, 06:22
    Bahrain police disperse funeral procession with tear gas, stun grenades (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

    Violent clashes broke out in Bahrain at the funeral of a teenager killed in protests marking the anniversary of the revolt of the Shiite majority against the ruling monarchy. The procession was blocked and dispersed with stun grenades and tear gas.

  • Vronsky

    “Sorry. I thought you were LAPD.”

    Not so far fetched. I was in Malta a few years ago, where shooting the migrating birds which pass over the island is a popular pastime. One intrepid hunter shot an approaching policeman. His defence? He thought it was a tourist.

  • KarimovaRevengeFantasist


    “A Capitalist democracy in which their oil belongs to us you mean.”

    No, I think it should be

    “A financially sound Capitalist democracy mostly funded by its own oil revenues”.

    As an alternative to the existing regime and its basket case economy, that sounds a lot better. Biden’s offer of direct talks with Khamenei’s representatives shows the USA is willing to work with the current regime (even if privately they want to be rid of it).
    You statement cleverly suggests theft and therefore that the West has immoral reasons for using force against Iran. The truth is that the West prefers to deprive the current regime of that oil revenue source and give it (no theft) to a different Iranian regime who won’t spend it on

    expanding the Iranian space program (a way to master intercontinental missile technology, useful for delivering nuclear warheads);

    developing Iranian nuclear powered submarines (the fuel needs to be enriched to 90% for that, which is similar to the level required for a nuclear bomb – this technology permits Iran to launch submarine patrols off the coast of the USA);

    funding Hezbollah and Bashar Al-Assad;

    buying UN votes from small countries to frustrate or insult the “hegemons”;

    funding terrorism (although the West/Israel or possibly MEK has presumably killed Iranian nuclear personnel);

    funding transfer of nuclear technology to any fruit cake with a grudge against the USA.

    John Bolton has been correct for years in predicting every set of talks with Iran involving the P5 + 1 will fail. The talks in Kazakhstan will fail too, just like the IAEA talks in Teheran last week did. The insults (not from you, Fred) about Bolton’s appearance simply show how challenged you all are to deal with his arguments. I didn’t know Bolton went to Yale. He has gone up massively in my estimation, just knowing that fact. The issue of the applause was maybe just done as a sign of respect. I doubt if a guy as smart as that needs to only agree to be filmed on condition applause is added.

    “Why would they want to be like us when the system they have results in a lot less people getting killed?”

    Fred, any change of Government in Iran is likely to be bloody, whether it is initiated by Iranians themselves or whether it occurs as a result of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear program. Because of the internal tensions in Iran, the moment any regime there cannot enforce order, all hell will break loose. Blaming that on the USA is unfair. The system they have in Iran results in less people being killed because people are too frightened to take revenge for all the injustices the system is creating. As soon as the fear is gone, unless the whole nation is given prompt psychiatric treatment to cope with what they have been through, they are likely to self-administer their own psychiatric treatment (obtain relief by settling old scores). Prof. Abbas Milani in one of his books says tenure of property and land has never been secure in Iran (going back to the Qajar dynasty?): the State can remove your rights any time it feels like it – indeed protesters in the Green movement have been silenced by having to put up their properties as a sort of bail condition: if they demonstrate again, they lose it.

    The J curve effect where order breaks down initially as a society attempts to become more democratic can be read about in Wikipedia. Iran is no exception. People on the far left of politics maybe like to ignore this and blame a lot of the deaths by violence of Iraqis on Iraqis on the allied invasion.

    The logic of your argument is Iran must not change because the death cost is too high. We shouldn’t have declared war on Nazi Germany because with hindsight the death cost was high. The death cost in the Iranian Revolution (I have no idea what the figures were despite being there) was probably quite low simply because the Shah was quite a nice man (he had his faults too, and he had cancer, and he had to suffer criticism from the West too perhaps ensured he gave in easily like Mubarak did). The dictatorial regimes that are allies of America usually do give in more easily. Iran isn’t so the bloodshed will be terrible.

  • nevermind

    @Ben carlsbad caverns are massive and awesome, I have visited them and the bats living in them are something to behold of, like they all want to fly off together and come in together, hundreds of thousands.

    Whilst down that end, have a slope down the levy for some tex-Mex folk music, but take good care, its right next to the border and can get a bit leady.

    Agree with both of you, Grand Canyon is breath taking, did not go down to the Colorado river, we were on the fear and loathing trail to Vegas. Las Vegas, ‘the meadows’, the only thing green is watered and manicured grass, it has got to be the most unsustainable City in the world.

  • Mary

    …..whether it occurs as a result of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear program… two posts above.

    ‘Surgical strikes’ only happen in hospital operating theatres in this country where the object is to save life or to mend or cure.

    We also prefer the English spelling of program, not the American one.

  • doug scorgie

    18 Feb, 2013 – 12:37 pm

    You don’t cite any examples, you don’t give references and you don’t supply links.

    “…the regime in Iran can’t survive without invoking a common enemy…” “…That fact may be the reason why it is difficult to build trust between the two countries…”

    So it is a “fact” not your opinion then.

    “Burying vast numbers of centrifuges…”

    Considering the fact that Israel has openly threatened to bomb the nuclear processing plants, it makes sense to keep them buried don’t you think?

    “…centrifuges capable of making far more enriched uranium than is necessary to make medical isotopes…”

    Iran Is Said to Convert Enriched Uranium to Reactor Fuel

    Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is believed by Western negotiators and international inspectors to be of far lower purity than is required to make nuclear weapons. Diplomats in Vienna said on Tuesday that enriched uranium converted into reactor fuel is hard to convert into fuel for weapons.

    “In a memorable interview the Swiss ambassador to Iran said on CNN when talking about what it was like to be hauled into the Foreign Ministry and shouted at, she said they don’t always tell you everything: you have to interpret things and this makes the job more interesting.”

    Again, no references or links.

    “The justification for Israel having a nuclear bomb I suppose is that they have a right to exist…”

    Doesn’t Iran have a right to exist?

    “…and if the most cost effective way of defending their small population (they can’t have a big army?) is to have a nuclear deterrent then who am I to say they shouldn’t have it…”

    Israel has an active armed force of 176,500 a reserve force of 565,000 and a paramilitary force of 8,050. That is a total of 749,550 available forces personnel.

    By contrast the United Kingdom has a total of 410,180.

    To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in aid mostly for weapons and military equipment. Obama has promised $3.1 billion in military aid just for this year (2013).

    “The fact they [Israel] are an open society (unlike Iran) and therefore are unlikely to behave irresponsibly…”

    You’re having a laugh aren’t you; Israel unlikely to behave irresponsibly?

    What about Operation Cast Lead; murder on the Mavi Marmara; political assassinations and the Samson Option?

    The “Iran has never declared war on anyone before” argument

    “This is true, but changing just a few of the words to “never attacked anyone before…”

    Why do you feel the need to change the words?

    “…of course changes the answer if you think Iran had a hand in the Beirut barracks bombing or the blowing up of the Argentine Jewish Centre, (I don’t know if it did, if I am honest).”

    If you don’t know, why mention it?

    “And it is true that Iranians have justifiable grievances against the West…the shooting down of an Iranian airliner full of pilgrims flying over a US warship in the Persian Gulf a long time ago. I haven’t followed that story nor the one about all the Iranian assets belonging to the Shah’s regime that are still in the West.”

    You admit to not knowing much about Mossadegh, you haven’t followed the story of Iran Air flight 655 or the whereabouts of Iran’s assets stolen by the late Shah and his regime. Yet you like to portray yourself as some sort of expert in Middle East affairs particularly relating to Israel and Iran.

    “…they [Iran] would seek to destroy the economic viability of Israel…”

    Isn’t that what Israel, the EU and the USA are trying to do to Iran?

    “Anyway, I don’t expect I’ve converted anyone to my views (not academic enough evidence presented).”

    I would say… no evidence provided for your views.

    You present yourself as some humble person trying to put modest opinions across and apologise for “not being academic enough.”

    I’m sure you are academic enough (if you want to be) but you are merely playing games on this blog.

  • Fred

    “The logic of your argument is Iran must not change because the death cost is too high. We shouldn’t have declared war on Nazi Germany because with hindsight the death cost was high.”

    But Germany was the aggressor, we didn’t just decide to declare war on Germany, it was a result of German imperialism, Germany invaded Poland.

    Iran isn’t imperialist, they haven’t invaded anyone, it is we in the west who are imperialist. It is we who invaded Iraq, it is we who invaded Afghanistan and it is we who have our sights set on Iran so we can start putting hotels on them.

    Iran had a democratic government, we overthrew that government and installed a dictator for no other reason than they nationalised their oil.

    Take a look at the Collateral Murder video released thanks to Wikileaks, those are American troops sent to Iraq to murder Iraqi civilians including children. Take a look at the photos from Abu Ghraib, those are American troops torturing Iraqi people in Iraq.

    It is we who are the Germany, we who have the Gestapo, we who are the aggressors.

  • nevermind

    “Fred, any change of Government in Iran is likely to be bloody, whether it is initiated by Iranians themselves or whether it occurs as a result of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear program”

    Utter conjecture, its either this or that option. No it is not. because western interference in consecutive elections in Persia, we have seen elections that were violent. We have seen a lot of violence directed towards Irans civil nuclear programm, cowards committing drive by killings, or by laying exploding devices in highly dangerous facilities. A lot of violence from exterior sources.

    Iran is a young country, many want modernity and what we have, for that they don’t need to be toppled, diplomatic discourse will also get us there.

    Lastly there are enough sabre rattlers already distorting reality without Karimova R.F. excellent work on behalf of the western, Israel centric chaos construction club.
    ‘I’m only interested in Uzbekistan affairs’, my arse, go fool somebody else not just yourself.

  • thatcrab

    RevengeFantasist: “The logic of your argument is Iran must not change because the death cost is too high. We shouldn’t have declared war on Nazi Germany because with hindsight the death cost was high.(…)Iran isn’t [nice] so the bloodshed will be terrible”

    So prejudiced: falsely associating Iran with Nazi Germany, and generalising declarations of war (which seem craved on Iran here), with the example of a country which was blizkreiging its way through Europe before the grave declaration was made.

  • N_

    @Ex Pat – many thanks for the link to Peter Dale Scott’s piece on Breivik, in text rather than audio. I’ll read it properly before maybe responding.

  • Arbed

    Excellent interview with Feliz Narvaez, Ecuador’s Consul to the UK. He talks about Correa’s recent victory and of having to sleep at the embassy for two months, it not being safe to leave Assange alone there at nights due to the threat of the police and security services stationed outside:“julian-assange-and-ecuador-will-hold-out-for-as-long-as-they-need-to”/

    Takeaway quote: “He’s a pleasant person to deal with…”

    Not recognisable as the same man we hear of from our beloved mainstream press then.

    Interesting things going on over on the Why I’m Convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar thread. It seems Goran Rudling is somehow involved in Assange being refused Swedish residency back in late August 2010. The idea behind the residency application was to give Wikileaks (the appearance of) even more legal cover for its publishing activities.“julian-assange-and-ecuador-will-hold-out-for-as-long-as-they-need-to”/

    For anyone who wants to take a look.

  • N_

    @Karel – agreed there is a funny side to Femen, but I’m not as one-handed about it as you are! 🙂 Advertising specialists know all about using (or coining) words that conjure up associations with other words, including subliminally, so I think the association you make use of was intended.

    I find it amusing to think of them disrupting something at St Giles’s Cathedral on Princes Street in Edinburgh. The looks on some of the Church of Scotland’s elders’ faces would be priceless.

    Or how about taking the shuttle across to Glasgow and disrupting a protestant Orange Walk, wearing sashes? Be good to protest against a Republican band on the same day, though.

    Or do something outside the English freemasons’ Grand Lodge on Great Queen Street in London? I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the money men who run Femen to realise that freemasonic exclusion of women gives them a sex-pol angle, or to devise a use of clothing to please the photo editors. Lights, aprons, action! I mean freemasons enjoy baring their own right breasts, don’t they? (Any wives of freemasons who are unaware of what their menfolk get up to with other menfolk, well I’m afraid it involves getting their nipples out…but only their right ones, mind. And their knees. Kinky sods.)

    Except…Femen isn’t fundamentally about amusement. It’s serious and very well-funded propaganda. It would be a big mistake to read their campaign as if it’s mounted by genuine people who actually believe something and want to make things better by reducing the weight of oppression. (Yes, even if Pussy Riot quote Guy Debord in their speeches in court.)

    Look at how the role of Christianity in politico-social propaganda is developing and being contested by different rackets in Russia; the flavour of their Islamophobia, which seems to express as much contempt for women brought up in Muslim cultures as for the male traditionalist bosses of those cultures; and the sheer ridiculousness of these globe-trotting stage-performing women in their early 20s, with their long blonde hair and their Hollywood-idealised body shapes, supposedly protesting about ‘phobia’ against male homos. I wonder how many people are going to change their minds about male homos by watching these young women with their knockers out?

    Big picture: they are building up the guff that posits ‘everyone doing what they want’ as the ‘alternative’ to ‘staid reactionary traditionalism’. There’s money in that. Look at the music sector. Gambling. Money-lending. Night clubs. Penny dropping? Look at how average attention span has fallen below 60 seconds. Are we with the Cambridge Footlights Revue or are we with the ‘upper class twits’? Press the red button [1] now, viewers!

    The crazy thing is… (and we should expect crazy things, because we live in crazy social conditions which are getting crazier)… as poverty increases in ‘advanced’ countries, religion is bound to strengthen here, not weaken.


    (1) This reference may be out-of-date, given that I haven’t had a TV for more than 20 years! 🙂

  • KarimovaRevengeFantasist


    “The techniques of de-Islamising societies is an ancient Satanic science, not something invented yesterday by a few expired neo-cons like Bolton and Bush.”

    I don’t have the knowledge to disagree with anything you say except that I can’t find fault with anything Bolton says. I have watched lots of his interviews on Iran on Foxnews (he is a paid consultant of theirs, and is on nearly every week). Foxnews is an appallingly biased “news” channel (although I share most of the views it does). I always thought Bolton was correct on every issue to do with Iran, but of course I thought his views on Europeans were those of a – well I think you can guess. It is only after reading the posts on this blog that I realise why, so of course he has gone up even more in my estimation. It is an irony I never bother reading much on UK politics and that I have learnt a truth of sorts from Bolton about my own countrymen, one which I was ignorant about.

  • George

    @Mary 7.32pm Interesting how the Torygraph presents Google as if that company can decide what websites do and don’t get ‘funded’.

    Remember, folks, if you’re saying something on the internet, it’s because Google spends its valuable resources to allow you to! Be naughty and the mighty Google will take your privileges away?

    If anyone is in any doubt about Google, please try the following experiment:

    1) Browse to their web search page
    2) Think of a name. Doesn’t matter whether you use a real name or a made-up one. I’ll use “#######” below.
    3) Think of an ethnicity – ooh, say “French” or “Islamic” or whatever. I’ll use “*******” below.
    4) Search on “#######” AND “*******”.
    5) What do you see? An ordinary list of search results, right?
    6) OK, now do the same with “#######” AND “Jewish”.
    7) What do you see? Another ordinary list of results, right? Wrong! Scroll down. You should get a link at the bottom entitled “Offensive Search Results”. If for some reason you don’t, here it is. Quote: “P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue”

  • N_


    So you can’t fault anything Bolton says, and you’ve watched him on the TV a lot, and now he’s gone up further in your estimation, and he’s taught you something about your British countrymen.

    Well what is it? Work on crafting and expressing it, have a read through before posting, just to check that you’re saying what you really think, and to be satisfied that you’re saying what you want to say as clearly as you can, getting to the heart of the issue or issues that you believe are important for you to post about, and then people can tell you what they think of it.

    I mean for goodness sake, if you’re going to be a troll, surely you can do better than saying you think Bolton’s a great guy and everything everyone says against him is a load of cobblers, and you haven’t taken your eyes off the guy since he first started appearing on your satan-box, and he’s improved your intellect immeasurable, and he’s the new messiah, etc. etc.?

  • Jemand

    @George – last post, previous page re offensive Google results

    I was aware of this when it first started.

    For the benefit of others, I tried this experiment –

    Google Search : Is Lord Monckton a secret muslim?
    Result : normal list of news, forum discussion, crackpot sites

    Google Search : Is Lord Monckton a secret Jewish person?
    Result : similar results + special offensive notice at bottom of page

    Google Search : I hate all fucking muslims
    Result : list of aggressively worded websites clearly anti-muslim, no special offensive notice

    It’s not hard to see a shifting pattern of power and privelege for certain segments of society.

  • Mary

    Overheard at the swimming pool this morning. Two women in their sixties expressing outrage at the cost of security for Bliar being paid by the state. One gave a figure of £600,000. Then the other said ‘And what about that horrible man in that embassy costing us millions? Why doesn’t he go back to Australia’. Apologies for repeating the rot. You can see how, politically speaking, it’s lonely living in Surrey.

  • John Goss

    Made me laugh Mary. The two old girls, incapable of recalling any name except Blair’s, or the Ecuadorian embassy (I spell it that way because the BBC spells it Ecuadorean) yet having the opinion implanted in their brains by a relentless and incessant repetition of misinformation from MSM. Poor things. I hope we never get old like that!

  • nevermind

    Followed by a good pummelling and a hot wax, mediocrity on a plate, thanks for that Mary, that were our average voters you were listening to….. sound of hairs being pulled out in clumps….

  • Arbed

    Possibly relevant to the above is Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt’s present deafening silence but busy travel schedule.

    Following his recent trip to South America to lobby CELAC, he is meeting today, 19th February, with William Hague in London, after which he will be travelling to Australia on Sunday, 23rd.

    Any bets on whether “L’Affaire Assange” will be on the agenda of Mr Bildt’s discussions?

  • LastBlueBell

    @Jemand, 18Feb, 9:18pm

    “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.”

    This overreaction is one aspect I think pose a significant danger for abuse, just because many seems to make this categorisation, and, as seen in the ever more insistent proposals for more restrictions, censoring and laws.

    Interresting essay concerning the importance of “debate” in a democracy,

    And in regard to the perceived Reduction of Violence,

    Steven Pinker on The Better Angels of our Nature – IQ2 Talks, This talk took place at the Royal Geographical Society on 1st November 2011. approx, ~36min

    The Following Discussion, with Matt Ridley, ~16min

    And the QA session, ~36min

1 5 6 7 8

Comments are closed.