10:10’s cunning plan

Well, I thought that video was funny (though they flogged the joke to, err, death), but I also think this Monty Python sketch is funny:

That said, the idea seems more like something that Baldrick would have come up with than Baldrick’s creator, Richard Curtis. Many people aren’t going to find it funny, merely offensive, especially since it’s not in the context of a comedy show. The resulting outrage from right wingers is something to behold, with the makers of the video called fascists and Nazis who are advocating murder and genocide. For example, the reliably crazy Lubos Motl (warning: Link goes to a blog with the ugliest design you are ever likely to see):

However, it was the choice of the 10:10 movement to openly promote genocide. They are not just promoting it: much like in the case of The Fate of the World PC game, they are planning it. They are genuinely planning ways how to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 10% a year. And indeed, genocide similar to what they present in the video (or in the game) is the only plausible way how something of the sort may be achieved.

The CIA, FBI, and others should go after the neck of the inhuman activists behind the 10:10 movement and those who harbor them. These people are a genuine threat not only for your well-being and prosperity but for your freedom and health (or life), too. It is amazing that people such as Gillian Anderson (of X-Files) collaborated to produce this atrocious video. Did someone threaten her with a red button (by the way, would Scully believe that such a thing could work?), or is she really such a disgraceful bloody N-word b-word?

Unless she was blackmailed, I do think she may want to go to jail.

Update: Matt Wootton on where he thinks 10:10 went wrong.


  1. #1 chek
    October 7, 2010

    I’d say that Barry Woods’ promoting of Professor Delingpole tells us all we ever need to know about Barry the Tool.

    Happily that epithet has more than one meaning, and none of them are complimentary to a thinking human being.

  2. #2 chek
    October 7, 2010

    Mike’s soldiers wear white hats and don’t kill children.

    Except they do, and they admit that they do. Mike might like to google Ethan McCord to find out, though I expect Mike will find any excuse to justify whatever horror the imperium visits on the untermenschen.

    I visted the Farnborough airshow in 1988. Those 30mm cannon rounds that equip the Apache helicopter are about the same size if slightly slimmer than a coke bottle. Filled with explosive.

    We now return you to our regular troll-free program, possibly minus ten Godwin points, but what the hell.

  3. #3 Mike
    October 7, 2010

    Mike & mike are not the same person. Probably obvious, but I don’t want @295 attributed to me!

  4. #4 Michael
    October 7, 2010


    I asked you for your method for identifiying the “human signature in the climate record”.

    Still nothing but fluff.

  5. #5 mike
    October 7, 2010


    American troops do wear white hats at least in comparison with those of other nations, including the Brits. Some bad apples. Sometimes mistakes are made. But when people are trying to kill you or your comrades, there’s not a lot of time to ponder the situation. The precautionary principle, you know.

    Incidentally, I don’t need to go to a fruity airshow to know what a 30mm round looks like–(what kind of coke bottles do they have in England anyway!). But what’s your point? Bullets, especially 30mm rounds, kill people. Is that your brilliant insight? Or that prissy mama’s boys get the willies when they behold the weapons of war? No news there, you know.

    Mike, I think you need to get in on the fight and show us how it’s done. You know: lead from the front and never make a mistake and, perhaps, devise some innovative “green” tactics, as well. Maybe you could even send us back some sensitive, anguished posts describing your battlefield heroics. And if you do join the action, Mike, you’ll deflect any criticism that you’re a pompous little twit, rather presumptuously disparaging brave men doing a tough job that are ten times (at least) your better.

    But we can imagine you’ll not get any closer to a scrap than an airshow. Right, Mike? Enjoy your protection and security, pal, that others secure for you.

    A closing thought, Mike. And I can speak with some authority, those that put their butts on the line for you, don’t even care for your good opinion–truly important matters occupy their mind.

    P. S. Your fellow-spirt, Wow, has by this time discovered that no kids were killed in the Wikileaks film. I think old Wow is now lying low hoping this whole thread goes away. Could be wrong though. I mean, Wow could be man enough to come up on the air and admit he has been wrong. Time will tell.

  6. #6 chek
    October 7, 2010


    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents”

    [Smedley Butler, Major General USMC.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

    Things didn’t noticeably change under Bush43/Cheney regime.

    And you’re in denial about infanticide, as well as climate change.

    What a tangled web you weave, other mike.

  7. #7 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    >*I think you need to get in on the fight and show us how it’s done. You know: lead from the front and never make a mistake and, perhaps, devise some innovative “green” tactics, as well. Maybe you could even send us back some sensitive, anguished posts describing your battlefield heroics.*

    You mean like the war monger Bush? And the desk jockies that initiated the steps that lead the massicares of thousands of innocents?

    >*American troops do wear white hats at least in comparison with those of other nations*

    US Troops are reved up to dehumanise the indigenous populations whose nations they occupy. The terms “Gook”, and “Rag Head”, “Hajji Sand Nigger” are tools for this.

    Dehumanising indigenous peoples is tactic to bypass some moral filters and encourage ‘decisive action’. Little wonder that children and innocents are slane given the positoin that the US troops are placed in by desk jockies.

  8. #8 mike
    October 7, 2010


    It’s good to get a semi-intelligent post, finally. Thank you, Chek, sort of. General Butler is a hero of mine (and of the Corps). And it is undoubtedly the case that the commitment to higher purpose, self-sacrifice, and courage of many young men in uniform (and now young women, as well)has been abused by cynical plutocrats and profiteers–just as starry-eyed enviormentalists have been abused by Big Green.

    While such abuses of the armed forces occur, the need remains for a ready, credible means of national defense and that that force remain under the control of the civilian authority. Otherwise, its juntas and Hitlers in control of our destiny. If the military is employed for less than noble purposes, then it is the fault of voters like you, Chek.

    After a good start, you blew it, Chek. Bush/Cheney? How are the policies of President Obama appreciably different? Afghanistan? Iraq? Maybe Pakistan. Iran anyone? Unlike General Butler, Chek, your world view is preposterously simple-minded and naive. I recommend you grow out of your please-be-my-friend need to belong to a group, shed your status as a “greenie” pawn, and start thinking for yourself. Then you’ll begin to be worthy of man of General Butler’s stature. Might even become one yourself.

    As far as the “truth” of infanticide goes, just what is the truth of infantifice, Chek? Or is this a pop-off innuendo without merit of a kind with Wow’s scurrilous little potshot? There is no policy to target children in the American Armed services. On the contrary, US soldiers and Marines are famous for their kindness and solicitude for kids (I know there are counter-examples, but they are rare). But you know that, don’t you, Chek? In war civilians, including children, are killed. But you knew that, too, didn’t you, Chek. However, to conflate collateral loss, to include the wrenching loss of children’s lives, with the deliberate killing of children is a stunt unworthy of you, Chek (I hope). On the other hand, if you know of deliberate killings of children by military members of the United States Armed Forces, I’ll gladly forward such information to the respective service IG.

    As far as climate change goes, for what it’s worth, Chek, I am not a climate change “denier.” I think climate changes. But I do think for myself. Try it, you might get to like it.

    Let’s see now. Wow makes a scurrilous and untrue accusation. I offer a simple correction. Then Wow responds and not only persists in his error, but offers me, as a bonus, a little fuss-budget English lesson. Then Mike, everyone’s favorite air-show commando, comes up on the air and identifies me as a troll (I guess I picked on his buddy and made him look bad). And now you, Chek, after a really great start, fizzle out and conclude your ever so urgent post with a limp-dick literary allusion (the weaving webs business–you’ve got to be kidding me). See what I mean, Chek? You are running with the wrong crowd, guy. You need to smarten up and get your act together.

  9. #9 chek
    October 7, 2010

    Correction: upon reading a clearer account by Ethan McCord [here](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/emcc-a28.shtml), of the two children in the van shown in the wikileaks incident, one child was merely badly wounded and the other only badly wounded enough to be initially presumed dead unlike their accompanying father who received a 30mm shell to the chest and actually was dead.

    Well, that’s a relief.
    All’s well that ends well, eh other mike?

  10. #10 mike
    October 7, 2010


    My post to Chek provides a response to your post, as well.

    But I do note the daring, original insights your post offers–drawn from personal experience, I’m sure. And no stereotypes. That’s what I like best about your post, Jakerman.

    By the way, Jakerman, you’ve heard of Hitler, haven’t you? Bunch of dehumanized American soldiers and Marines, saved your butt from that guy. Maybe you didn’t know that. Now you do. And from the Communists too(don’t kid yourself, Jakerman, you would have been in the Gulag, not running the Gulag, like you think–the Bolsheviks, tough guys I have to admit, would never trust someone like you (a wrecker, an intellectual, a technocrat, a whiny little twit) with a senior position in their most important instrument of terror and oppression).

    Get the picture, Jakerman. Try harder. It’ll come to you if you try really hard.

  11. #11 mike
    October 7, 2010

    What a nasty little guy you are, Chek. But yes, thank God the kids were saved–and provided the best medical care our Armed forces can provide. You also know, if you watched the Wikileaks video that there was no knowledge on the part of the choper crew that there were kids in the van. The van was acting suspiciously (please look at the video and you’ll see the streets are otherwise deserted except for armed men of military age–the locals knew the score) and was suspected of being a car bomb. That’s why it was destroyed.

    But you are not interested in a good faith understanding of the event, are you, Chek. Your pathetic need is, instead, to score points. What a lowlife.

    I get the strong impression, Chek, that I’m dealing with some dizzy kid. You know, Chek, it’s not healthy for you to spend so much time on the computer (just ask your mom). At your age you should be interested in girls, sports. Healthy activities like that. Save the “big” thoughts for when you’ve done some growing up.

  12. #12 James Haughton
    October 7, 2010

    @ 262: Michael, think clearly; you should be wishing Barry’s head would explode.
    @ 305: I call Godwin. You lose.

  13. #13 Rick Bradford
    October 7, 2010

    The reason the film missed its mark is because its makers have no empathy with the people they were trying to reach, and little or no awareness of what normal people find acceptable.

    The makers are not stupid (in an IQ sense) but are utterly clueless (in an EQ sense). That’s another way of saying ‘They don’t get it.’

    They possess a sort of dehumanized sense of moral self-righteousness and certitude, which backfired in this case and will inevitably do so again, as it has in the past.

    What ordinary people in their millions have seen is the disdain in which they are held by a handful of arrogant narcissists who want to ram collectivist policies down their throats whether they like it or not. And they don’t like it.

    This is why the AGW movement is slipping, and will ultimately lose out — regardless of any science — because the despised masses hate the creepy people behind the movement and the lofty contempt they display for others.

  14. #14 J Bowers
    October 7, 2010

    And around 700 people signed up to 10:10 yesterday.

  15. #15 chek
    October 7, 2010

    That’s a lot of unsubstantiated wishful thinking, Rick.

    Exactly the kind of thing idiot columnists and nincompoop websites would have you believe, but have zero evidence for.

    Let’s just say that my experience differs greatly, and that no gardeners or allotment holders (both popular pastimes with the over 40’s) that I know have any doubts about climate change. The clue for them is in the ever extending growing season.

  16. #16 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    Mike, your need to reach back to WWII is an abdication of critical assessment of the situation that has developed in the 65 years since.

    I.e. WWII does not give allied forces a free pass for the end of time.

    More recent developments (Vietnam, Iraq) show the Mititary-Poltical Profit complex has terribly damaging consequences. US agression is [underming the the global goodwill](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/usa.iran) towards towards the US.

    People around the world [have experience the US](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) interference in [domestic politics](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm), or as ocupiers

    Certain corporations do very well out of US agresion, and certan corporations strategically support candidates and parties to ennsure ‘the right’ guys win office to ensure that the US polices matches their corporate self interest.

    Smedley Butler stood up to a takeover of government, Eisenhower warned of this take over. Now applogists like Mike uncritially support many of the actions resulting from this takeover.

  17. #17 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    Rick Bradford’s comments should be viewed with [his record](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838283) in mind.

  18. #18 mike
    October 7, 2010


    Well you almost managed a cogent post, until at the very end you attributed views to me, I do not hold. What’s with you guys, can’t you conduct a discussion without putting words in someone’s mouth. Always got to try and score a point at the end!

    Jakerman, I’m going to give you one more chance. If you don’t show intellectual integrity in the future, then I’m not going to let you impose on my valuable time again. Your loss, not mine.

    I agree with everything else you say. So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm’s way on dubious purposes? The military is the servant of our elected representatives. Except to defend the constitution or to refuse an unlawful order, our Armed Forces are morally and legally obligated to follow the dictates of our Commander-in-chief and the chain-of-command. Our soldiers and Marines are not allowed to launch a junta anytime they have a “better” idea. So if you’ve got a bone to pick–pick it with the government leaders you shake the pom-poms for come every election.

    Once in the fight, however, our soldiers and Marines (and sailors too) have the obligation to fight to win within the Law of Land Warfare and the rules of engagement, to include the right of self-defense. And if we get another menace like Hitler or the Commies, you’ll be glad your nation has the means to defend itself from such predators. No pass for WW II. It’s a dangerous world, made much less so by a few superb young men and women defending our nation–even if their valiant services are, from time to time, abused by “Green” politicians, among others.

  19. #19 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    >*you attributed views to me, I do not hold.*

    It happens to the best of us Mike, you did for me also. I guess that means you need to think about the implications of your jibe: “*you guys, can’t you conduct a discussion without putting words in someone’s mouth.*

    >*So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm’s way on dubious purposes?*

    It’s complex, and it’s also a profit complex.

    Certain things work in politics, including advertising (putting your message in people’s heads) and controlling the media. Both require $.

    Imagine your goal is to gain power, few candidates now days can run a successful campaign without tens of millions of $. To gain this (and gain victory) you can work long and hard to get this bit by bit from everyday people, or you can save a lot of time, energy, and be more assured of $ result by gaining the support of someone with lots of $.

    It happens that some people with lots of $ earn their $ via activity that has an impact on the lives of others. Some of this activity has a negative impact and people seek to regulate that to preserve long term wellbeing for themselves and others. But regulation requires political power, and hence political power can affect the $ of some more than others.

    Here we see a self reinforcing feedback. $ concentrated in the hands of the few can either be protected or threatened by politic power, Hence for some people, whose profit can bee affected by regulation it can be seen to be in their self interest to give lots of $ to a candidate that will protect their self interest.

    Few people enter politics to be mercenaries, so candidates only accept $ from big business to beat the other guy who is always worse. “If I didn’t do it, she would and she is crazy”.

    Now it happens that domestic regulation is not the only complex, there are also complexes around foreign policy and military action. Certain nations do things that affect the $ of our corporations, such as changing labor laws or nationalising natural assets like mineral wealth. The right candidates can gain $ by pushing for our policy or action that changes the actions of other countries.

    It also happens that these countries who affect the profits of our corporations are [threatening our existence](http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/01/05/looking-at-the-invasion-of-panama-through-the-lens-of-iraq/9101/), ruled by terrible people (we should know as they were often our assets).

    Fortunately for the good politicians (those who only take $ to win ahead of the worse candidate) it so happens that standing up against countries that “threaten our security” is popular among the masses who receive their awareness filtered via the media profit complex.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2010

    > So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm’s way on dubious purposes?

    I can’t tell which country’s elections you’re referring to, but context suggests American. And if so, then the presumptions in your question seem particularly ignorant. *Both* major parties do it in American politics – and because of the political system a third party is not viable until one of the two dominant parties completely crumbles, which certainly hasn’t happened yet. That means you *cannot* elect a party to power that won’t do it.

    Never mind the truly bizarre implication that voters assent to – and are responsible for – *every* action subsequently undertaken by their elected representatives.

  21. #21 Holly Stick
    October 8, 2010

    mike, you keep talking about you Americans fighting Hitler and “the Commies”. Are you not aware that the only reason the Allied forces which included the Americans won WWII is because of the Russians? Without them Hitler would probably have won in Europe. Ironic, eh, since some of them definitely were not white hat types.

  22. #22 mike
    October 8, 2010


    Great post. I’ll keep in touch if you don’t mind.


    Kinda agree. But then, why find fault with the Armed Forces for carrying out the legal orders of your elected representatives. Prefer a military dictatorship?

    Holly Stick,

    WWII would not have been possible if Stalin had not cut a deal with Hitler to jointly carve up Poland, with Stalin further gobbling up the Baltic States and the Finnish Karelian peninsula.

    When Great Britain and France declared war on Germany, to Stalin’s delight, Uncle Joe withheld his forces so that Germany was spared a second front. During the first 18 months or so of the war, Stalin poured foodstuffs and raw materials into Germany to massively support Germany’s war effort. Likewise, good comrades elsewhere in Europe and the United States were enjoined to help Germany’s war effort.

    Of course, Stalin was angling to get everyone else to knock themselves out so he could pick up the pieces. But Hitler stabbed Uncle Joe in the back before Uncle Joe could stab Hitler in the back.

    And no, the Soviet Union’s war effort was not essential to winning the war with Germany. Only America’s effort was essential. The Soviet Union’s contribution merely meant the war ended as soon as it did and Germany was spared a nuclear holocaust. Even without the bomb, Germany could not have defeated the U. S. and especially the U. S. and Britain alliance. Don’t believe Soviet propaganda. You saw what short work (admittedly it took a few decades) the U. S. made of the Soviet Union. Same fate awaited Germany.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2010

    > But then, why find fault with the Armed Forces for carrying out the legal orders of your elected representatives.

    Seriously? I guess this makes sense in a hardcore authoritarian follower worldview (see Bob Altemeyer’s research), but not mine, because:

    (a) otherwise you’re not holding your elected leaders to account.

    (b) elected leaders are supposed to *represent* the will of the electorate to some extent, and they can’t do so if you never express an opinion.

    (c) legality does not define the boundaries of morals, ethics – or even (leaving all of those considerations aside) what you think is appropriate and suitable for your leaders to be doing.

  24. #24 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    “I was only following orders”.

    Didn’t work out too well when the US were leading the prosecution.

    And the geneval convention makes what these soldiers a war crime.

    You know what the US does to war criminals [don’t you](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500135.html)?

    And the bombing of Japan in WW2 was done to ensure that the Russians (who got in to Berlin first, despite a US convoy starting off early and getting into a shelling from the UK artillery who were “shock-and-awe” ing the german emplacements, hence their common friendly fire incident) didn’t join in as they said they would to help the Americans.

    Dropping the bomb was as much about politics and making it U-S-A! As tactical.

    But War is Hell and the military HAVE to ensure that their men are as moral as possible so that a slip doesn’t put them into War Criminal territory. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening, with the explicit approval of many of the more vocal “hawks”.

  25. #25 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > I offer a simple correction.

    But don’t offer any correction to any of your own verbal diarrhea.

    Drove his children into a war zone? No, into his town.

    Scurrilous? You’re projecting, but all nutjobs do that because if everybody is as vile and evil as you are, then you can sleep at night knowing that you’re no worse than anyone else (note how when human rights come up in a political discussion, the right wing almost always say something along the lines of “we’re better than China, though, so why don’t you go live there?”).

    You are scum, mike.

    Vile scum.

  26. #26 mike
    October 8, 2010


    You seem to be another one of these guys anxious to score points. Except for your snotty tone, your first post was worth my while. But then you turn doofus on me:

    -How do propose the military hold elected officials to account? March on the Capitol with fixed bayonets. What are you proposing? That the military goes on strike if it doesn’t like an order (had that model in Japan under the Meiji constitution–didn’t work out so well did it?). On the other hand a military officer’s oath of office, in the United States, is a sacred oath, sworn before God, to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign an domestic. So there is a military check on a tyrannical executive branch. But that check has been employed with great reluctance historically–only during the civil war did U. S. officers, in significant numbers, exercise that option on behalf of their perceived states’ rights under the Constitution. I don’t want another civil war. But then I don’t like blood spatters. On the other hand, the oath to support and defend the Constitution is sacred and binding.

    -Your second point is a little bewildering–do I give the slightest impression I have reservations about giving an opinion? Now a serving officer does have limitations on his public speech–although it is not absolute. But again, what do you see as the model for the military in a democratic society? Generals dressing down Prime Ministers and Presidents? You don’t see any problem with that, huh?

    -As to your third point, I agree–who wouldn’t? But your point is made in the context of the role of the military in a democratic/republican government. My view, and it is the view of American officers, is that the military is bound by legal orders of President and any other view invites rule by junta. However, orders that entail crimes against humanity and the like are not binding on the military. Indeed, there is an affirmative obligation to refuse such orders. You’ve got a different view, perhaps. Want to show us your cards?

    Let me be presumptuous, Lotharson. You’re a slick guy who has figured out a dozen or more hustles which affix you to the public tit. At the same time, you admire yourself in the mirror for your lofty view of the evil empire while sucking up its bounty. And, of course, your moral superiority just happens to remove from you any sense of military obligation your country–dovetailing neatly with your natural cowardly inclinations and freeloading low character. One out of three? Two? All Three? I bet all three.

    On the other hand, Lotharson, old pal, when you see a funny film about kids exploding in blood spatter, be honest, doesn’t that get your little big-man Himmler-like hormones aflow? And putting bullets in the back of the heads of thousands? Again, honesty please, isn’t that one of your treasured wet dreams?

    But maybe I’m wrong and owe you an apology, Lotharson, for my presumption. So just what are you doing to thwart the evil empire? Anything? And just what benefits of the evil empire have you rejected (benefits, not obligations and burdens of citizenship)? Other than self-congratulatory posts to blogs and hanging out with Bob Altemeyer and grooving on his “work”, just what is the substance of your life of virtue?

  27. #27 mike
    October 8, 2010

    Hey Wow! Good to have you back, guy. I’d given you up for dead (figuratively speaking, of course).

    Geez, Wow, I must have really struck a nerve. I mean two whole messages. And the stately progression of the messages! The first, sort of sane, though with a hint of barely hanging on. Then Pow! the second one a total freak-out. A thunderbolt, Wow! You’re the man, Wow.

    Although your combination meltdown, freak show, and blood splatter had an entertaining quality, seriously, Wow, you are mentally ill. You need help, old buddy.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2010


    Your big error here is to assume that, because individual U.S. soldiers are mostly, ‘nice guys doing a tough job’, you forget the background as to what they are doing, where they are doing it and why thay are doign it. The problem is that in their ‘institutional role’ they do monstrous things collectively because the institution itself – the basis of wars fought on grounds entirely different from those drip fed to us by the corporate mainstream media – are indeed monstrous. Its the same thing as defending a Corporate CEO on the basis that he’s a sweet guy who is a well-respected community member. That may all be true, but once he dons his CEO cap, he is working for an institution that does horrific things. This is because he is working for others in order to maximize trhe return of their investments. Its the same with any military establishment.

    “Iraq has been destroyed, never to rise again”, were the words of Nir Rosen, a respected commentator of the region, when he visited in 2008. A recent study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a leading medical journal, published a study, ‘Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009’. The survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah showed a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. It found a 10-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia. By contrast, Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia. According to the study, the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout”.

    Of course, the western MSM gave this a bye, much as they did with the sanctions of mass destruction that may have killed between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqi citizens between 1991 and 2003. The Lancet studies and the study by Opinion Business Research, which estmated staggeringly high death tolls for Iraqis as a result of the invasion and occupation, were also routinely ridiculed in the media. We can go back to previous wars – most recently Viet Nam – and find the same denial. Of course there has been denial in the west, because our crimes are rarely if ever reported, and, when they are, they are downplayed. The point I am making is that the US military is not located in over 140 countries in order to defend freedom but to ensure that capital flows remain in the right direction. Smedley Butler summed it up perfectly. Senior US planner George Kennan said more-or-less the same thing is 1948, and more recently when he said that US foreign policy should aim to ‘protect our resources’ which just so happened to lie under the land masses of other countries in South America. This is the US miltary’s job nowadays IMHO. To subjegate the resource wealth of other countries, outright expansionism, and the nullification of alternative systems. All at the behest of the powerful elites which dominate domestic society. And I think there is a lot of evidence to prove this, if one bothers to look for it.

    Sorry to say, but IMHO your comments on WWII are pretty gumbified. It certainly is not as simple as you suggest. Certainly the Allied effort played a crucial role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. But so did the Russians, who destroyed the German panzer divisions in the east and seriously undermined Hitler’s main obsession, which was to capture Russia and its vast wealth of natural resources. Most importantly, the wars being fought today at the behest of corporate power have little (or should I say, much less) to do with what happened 70 years ago. Certainly many US corporations became wealthy as a result of WW II, but the wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan are all about pipelines and blue and black gold. The US State Department wrote in 1950 that the Persian Gulf represented the ‘Greatest material prize in history’ and a ‘Source of stupendous strategic power’. Expand that to include the vast natural gas reserves in the Caucasus region and its clear why US planners covet the region. Zbignieuw Brezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ (1998; a veritable Bible for the neocons) lays it out in fine print. But it goes even well before that, to the Council of Foreign Relation’s ‘Grand Area Strategy’ (1939) which was a blueprint foir the carving up of west Asia’s mineral wealth. Hong Kong Times journalist Pepe Escobar brilliantly exposes all of the myths and realities in his books, ‘Globalistan’ and ‘Obama does Globalistan’.

    All of this puts into perspective, as far as I am concerned, what the US military is doing in the world today. All of this nonsense about ‘rules of engagement’ (meaning rules for shooting and killing people) masks the real agenda.

  29. #29 J Bowers
    October 8, 2010

    Rick Bradford — “This is why the AGW movement is slipping, and will ultimately lose out — regardless of any science — because the despised masses hate the creepy people behind the movement and the lofty contempt they display for others.”

    Hmmm. Interesting criteria you have for deciding on whether to f**k up our next generation of kids or not. Perhaps they’ll be reading a lot of internet posts like yours during history lessons.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2010

    > You seem to be another one of these guys anxious to score points.

    This seems like projection to me, but I could easily be wrong.

    > How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?

    I didn’t. Try reading what I posted again, in context. You appeared to be trying to blame (some of) the electorate for the actions of their elected leaders, like so:

    > So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm’s way on dubious purposes?

    My comments were in response to *that*, not to the idea (which I don’t think had been raised at that point) of having “the military hold elected officials to account”. If I misinterpreted you on that score, my apologies. But if I did not, that means that your post – although I agree with parts of it (e.g. the paragraph that includes “You’ve got a different view, perhaps. “) – wasn’t at all related to what I was saying, and imputes to me views that I do not hold.

    > You’re a slick guy who has figured out a dozen or more hustles which affix you to the public tit.

    LOL! Your mind-reading skills are no better than average, although you do score points for above average creative imagination. As one example, I’m employed in the private sector and I’m valued enough by my employer for my contributions to be quite well rewarded for it – and anyone who knows me would state that I am anything *but* “slick”. The rest of your imaginings are little better – especially the rather sick but revealing fantasy you have that a movie I haven’t seen “get[s my] little big-man Himmler-like hormones aflow”. Is it truly difficult for you to imagine the possibility that I’m not authoritarian – either follower or leader – and that others with similar concerns might not be either? And if so, have you ever reflected on why that is?

  31. #31 mike
    October 8, 2010


    I greatly appreciate your thought-provoking post. Some of your points, I’ve wrestled with myself, others I’ve just not got to or even considered. Without either agreeing or disagreeing with the detail of your analysis, the issue I addressed in my previous posts, is the most relevant aspect of your analysis to my interests. So please indulge me.

    To put the matter in a form for further discussion, let me ask: If we assume everything you say is accurate and that your analysis is the final word in its treatment of current geo-politics and the American (and British?) governments, then what is the proper place and role of the Armed forces of the United States and Great Britain? I’ve offered my view in some previous posts, at least from an American perspective. May I ask how yours might differ? I am genuinely interested in your reply.

    Incidentally, I loved the word “gumbified”. Just as soon as I look up its precise meaning, I intend to enthusiastically lock it up in my treasure chest of oddball words. Keep ’em coming, please.

    The Russians. Salt of the earth. And like Germans and Americans and Japanese and, indeed, like everyone else , they share the same human substance that forms us all. I have the highest regard for the Russians’ martial abilities (some scary dudes) and their astounding feats of arms in WWII. Russian efforts saved hundreds of thousands of American and British lives, undoubtedly, at the expense of their own. But Stalin was evil incarnate befitting his murderous Communist creed. And we would have won without them–unless Germany’s u-boats had prevailed in the Battle of the Atlantic. Fortunately, we won that critical battle. But it was close. At least, that’s my best read of the war.

    Again, Harvey, I sincerely thank you for your great post. Although my initial estimate is that we probably don’t have too much of a shared worldview, I anticipate that I’m going to learn a lot, if you would be so kind as to exchange a couple of posts with me. Maybe even have my mind changed.

  32. #32 sunspot
    October 8, 2010

    almost right on pinocchio,

    If you know the finer details of WW2 then you would know that Hitler was forced into that war, truth is the first casualty of war and the victors then write the history.

    Did you read this ? http://www.tinyurl.com.au/wfv

    from here http://www.newamericancentury.org/

  33. #33 mike
    October 8, 2010


    You’re right and I’m wrong. My presumption was misplaced and well, presumptuous. You are owed an apology. And I sincerely apologize and am delighted you are such a good guy–I’m not being facetious. Indeed, I couldn’t be happier to learn my first impression of you was so hare-brained wrong (although I’m chagrined that could have gotten it so wrong). Lesson learned.

    I hope that my apology mends fences between us enough to continue a conversation. In that regard, may I ask what you see as the proper place and role of the Armed forces of the United States and Great Britain, in the areas you addressed (and others you might care to address). You know my view. Fire away. What’s the better alternative?

    Incidentally, I also apologize for spelling your name wrong. I’m usually attentive to names, but dropped the ball this time. Again, my apologies.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2010


    Many thanks for replying. Sorry to be so heavy handed. Gumbified was pretty tactless. Anyway, I can tell you that I have wrestled with this question for a long time to. Many USA veterans who have been abandoned by their country I am sure feel exactly the same way. Stan Goff, a retired veteran, writes a great weblog, ‘Feral Scholar’, in which he addresses many of these issues. I admire the guy for his honesty. He is a proud American, much like Andrew Bacevich, who lost his son in Iraq. Read his books too. They are real eye-openers. He angrily criticizes the increased militarism of US policy since the end of the Viet Nam war, and claims that, if continued unchecked, it will destroy democracy in time. Like me, he argues that the real agendas for Pentagon planners is far different from that which we read in the MSM on a daily basis.

    I guess I just not trust politicans. I see them as paid liars on behalf of those who pull the strings behind them. By these I mean the corporate lobbyists and establishment, who ahave their own very specific agenda. I have read a lot of declassified UK planning documents that are described in detail in books by British historian, Mark Curtis (the books are entiled, “Web of Deceit” and “Unpeople”. Many of these documents are declassfied under the Freedom of Information Act and are freely available in large library archives for anyone who wants to see what really drove the foreign policy establishment in thew 1960s and 1970s (and little has changed now). Curtis spent a lot of time in libraries reading up on these documents, and for reasons of brevity he focussed on the middle east. What he found was truly shocking, at least if we consider the usual narrative that is endlessly regurgiated in the MSM. UK planners, for the most part, expressed concern that people living in countries with large oil and/or natural gas deposits might embrace nationalistic regimes which would try and use their own resources for internal development e.g that is to benefit their own people (witness the overthrow of nationalist Mohammed Mosadegh in Iran in 1953). This concerned UK planners because it would ‘conflict with the interests of British businesses’. Therefore, UK planners advised that ‘everything should be done to ensure that the British government influences internal decision-making processes’ in these countries.

    Curtis explained that in document after document, the same pattern emerged. Far from supporting internal democracy in middle eastern nations, successive British goverments were terrified of it, because they would lose influence over the ways in which the internal natural resources of these countries – and expecially the profits generated from them – would be divided.

    US planning dcouments from Latin American tell much of the same story (hence Kennan’s quote). And, as Greg Grandin eloquently points out in his book, ‘Empire’s Workshop’, the US has traditionally expoloited the wealth of countries in its ‘own backyard’ as a means of developing the right strategies for expansion into the ‘Grand Area’ as I described the CFR described the west Asian region. I see the future as one based on who controls pipelines that criss-cross the east- and central-Asian energy grid. And, most importantly, the bemerging role of China as a world superpower and Russia as a supplier of natual gas and oil. Read up on the ‘Shanghai Co-operation Organization’. Formed in 2001, it partners Russia and China, with India, Pakistan and Iran as ‘non-member’ observers. Its a kind of NATO-east; get used to the acronym, its going to be around awhile.

    So, what role do I see for the US and UK military? Let me put it this way: IMO both countries would gain a lot more favor in the world if they spent more money saving people and less money killing them. We, meaning those holding the club, may be blind to economic and political realities on the ground but the people at the receiving end of the club know exactly what is going on. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq know what the invasions and occupations are all about, even if we in the west prefer to believe in imperial illusions. I think that US and UK military have no role in the world outside of directly defending on our own shores. So long as there are US military bases set up in 140 plus countries, I think that there will be growing resentment. The Pentagon has become a veritable “House of War” (in the words of American writer James Carroll) that was actually supposed to be decommissioned after WWII. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warmed of a military-industrial complex in his resignation speech in 1961, and his words resonate more now than ever.

    I have more ideas along this themse but I will save them for later.

  35. #35 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?

    They don’t.

    Watch series 3 and 4 of Babylon 5 for how a soldier being asked to do the immoral should hold his elected officials to account: by NOT DOING the immoral act.

    That is the ENTIRE POINT of the Nuremberg Trials conclusion that “I was only following orders” is no defence to war crime accusations. The soldier has a DUTY to uphold the Geneva conventions and cannot be forced to obey an immoral command.

    It IS hard to do when, in a war (though this gives the lie to “Mission Accomplished”, doesn’t it) you see your friends shot, blown up and lying in pieces, wailing in pain.

    But they are PROFESSIONALS. They (all of them) knew that bullets and bombs were going to figure highly in their career and that death for them is definitely on the cards.

  36. #36 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > Posted by: mike | October 8, 2010 5:11 AM

    Did you actually have *anything* to say, mike? Or are you just bloviating?

    Musta hit a nerve to have you avoid saying anything of substance yet HAVE to say “something”.

  37. #37 mike
    October 8, 2010


    Again, I’m most appreciative that you’ve shared so freely your considerable study of contemporary affairs. A portion of the history you cite, I’ve stumbled across myself. And many of your thoughts have crossed my mind, as well. If I may, there are three considertions I have.

    -While many of the foreign policy issues/events you cite (and don’t get me started on the mind control and medical experiments) appear very questionable, some of the decisions, I suspect would make a certain sense if viewed from the perspective of the original decision makers.

    –Through much of the 20th century the Western democracies faced mortal rivals who aspired to destroy our democracies and replace them with fascist, nazi, communist, or Imperial Japanese alternatives. So what I can’t eliminate as a possibility in most cases, is that otherwise repugnant decisions might have a convincing rationale, that is not immediately apparent.

    –Let me give a non-geopolitical example that might better capture the flavor of my thoughts: During WWII British code breakers achieved astonishing access to the Axis’ most secret communications, as I know you are aware. One intercept revealed that the town of Coventry was to be targeted in a forthcoming bombing raid. Despite that prior knowledge, the British government deliberately decided not to evacuate Coventry’s population and the ensuing raid inflicted grievous casualties on the predominantly civilian population. On the surface, the British government’s decision seems unconscionable, but at the time, it was judged that the country’s code breaking successes must be kept secret and an evacuation of Coventry might have betrayed that secret to the Germans. So in the case of Coventry, the seemingly indefensible suddenly becomes defensible.

    -The “isolationist” retreat of America (as its detractors term the option) you propose has much appeal, I would say. However, I can’t quite be convinced that the option is a better one. Periods of prolonged peace (relatively speaking) have been associated with great powers enforcing a code of conduct among nations–the Pax Britannica and the Pax Romana, for example. Even earlier, the unification of the kingdoms of upper and lower Egypt conferred on the Nile river valley centuries of peace unknown in Mesopotamia. There may be other mechanisms by which a stable peace can be achieved, but until such mechanism can be practically secured, the current Pax Americana has its appeal. Absent a global, or at least regional cop, I fear much of the world would return to the level of bloodletting seen in the first 75 years of the 20th century. On the other hand, the U. S. would not likely suffer, itself, if it confined its Armed Forces to the defense of the homeland and critical sea lanes (we are a maritime nation). Again, chewing on this one and would appreciate your thoughts.

    Finally, I’m still not sure, Harvey, as to your view of the place and role of the the U. S. Armed Forces. Does the place and role of the U. S. Armed Forces differ based on employment, in terms of obligations of its Officers and men? Or is such a matter constant regardless of the employment? Currently, the obligations of military personnel are invariant and most basically to: support and defend the constitution, obey the legal orders of the duly constituted civilian military authority, adhere to the Law of Land Warfare and the principles developed at Nuremberg, and perform courageously and competently assigned military missions. Some portions of the above obligations involve binding, indeed sacred, oaths. Do you propose re-designing the above sorts of obligations of military members? Or, perhaps, the real concern is how the military is employed by civilian authority, not the military members’ current obligations. Something like a tyro mechanic misusing a tool–nothing wrong with the tool, just its employment.

    I have much enforced time on the hands, Harvey. So I could keep this chit-chat going longer than the law allows. I suspect you, on the other hand, have a real life and need to attend to more important affairs. As you get a chance, any further thoughts would be appreciated.

  38. #38 mike
    October 8, 2010


    I’m just bloviating, Wow. You’ve found me out. Darn!

    Babylon 5? Wow, the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations. You seem to be suffering from an over-rich diet of Manga comics, video games, and TV shows. Get out into the real world. Join the Army or Marines even. You need some life-experience. I mean, put to the test some of your cocksure theories.

    Glad to see you’ve somewhat calmed down. I was getting worried, Wow.

  39. #39 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations.

    Then why did these soldiers forget? It is against conventions of war to fire upon people who have not been identified as combatants.

    I.e. the original party shot up.

    It is against the conventions of war to shoot at those who, civilian or not, are recovering the wounded on the battlefield.

    It is against the conventions of war to shoot at unidentified targets like the children in the pickup.

    Either they were ordered to, or they did it themselves.

    In the latter case, there’s no cause to ask:

    > How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?

    Because this was the soldiers themselves, not their elected officials.

    PS these soldiers get to vote, too, don’t they?

    And not forgetting the fourth.

  40. #40 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations.

    Then why did these soldiers forget? It is against conventions of war to fire upon people who have not been identified as combatants.

    I.e. the original party shot up.

    It is against the conventions of war to shoot at those who, civilian or not, are recovering the wounded on the battlefield.

    It is against the conventions of war to shoot at unidentified targets like the children in the pickup.

    Either they were ordered to, or they did it themselves.

    In the latter case, there’s no cause to ask:

    > How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?

    Because this was the soldiers themselves, not their elected officials.

    PS these soldiers get to vote, too, don’t they?

    And not forgetting the fourth.

    > You seem to be suffering from an over-rich diet of Manga comics, video games, and TV shows.

    During Iraq War II (the sequel to the smash hit Iraq War) there were interviews with the soldiers on the battlefield. One young tank gunner said (quoting from memory):

    I put the music on loud and it’s just like a computer game.

    How about YOU go out there and stop being an armchair hawk, mike?

  41. #41 mike
    October 8, 2010


    Sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Wikileaks incident was within the provisions of the Law of Land Warfare and the ROE’s in place at that time (not to say some agenda-laden lawyer might not try to argue to the contrary). That’s why no action was taken against the helicopter crew. So quit faking it, Wow. For Pete’s sake. Better yet, get in uniform and show us how its done.

  42. #42 Paul UK
    October 8, 2010

    Just had a look at the 10:10 count again and it’s gone down by about 2000, having gone up by the same amount??

    Is that 4000 withdrawn and 2000 signed up?
    Or was the increase due to bogus sign ups, eg. false post codes and email addresses?

    I think maybe bogus sign ups are more likely.

  43. #43 chek
    October 8, 2010

    small mike, you can justify away as much as you will, but it remains that Iraq was invaded without even the fig leaf of UN authority as step two in a gamble for regional dominance.

    The wikileaks incident shows what happens when foreign soldiers are in a strange land flying about with 30mm hammers looking for 30mm problems to nail. What some kid poorly trained in local conditions and hyped up on danger believes transforms into the combined might of judge, jury and executioner of multiple innocent victims. It may not be procedure, but its inevitability is obvious. Neither is it likely to be the only such incident. Your tired old ‘bad apples’ excuse was also wheeled out at Abu Ghraib before the extent that the public could stomach was made known. The full extent? I doubt it. That’ll come out in 20 years time.

    Of course the invading army will excuse its soldier’s actions. Just as the contractors were excused massacring that wedding party and whatever else is required to make the whole operation procede expediently. Such considerations are hardly a measure of the morality or basic human decency of the situation though. Try not to conveniently forget that while that’s good enough for you, not everybody sees it that way in other parts of the world, and supreme power has a historical habit of shifting where it resides on a fairly frequent basis. From the rumours, when a senior enough whistleblower writes the book, Fallujah will become as well known as Dresden or Baba Yar. There’s damned good reasons reporters were ’embedded’ and the free roving ones tended to meet sticky ends until the rest saw which way the wind was blowing.

    And lastly your febrile imaginings about who and what I am in #303 & #306 are pants-pissing laughable.

  44. #44 chek
    October 8, 2010

    Paul UK said: “I think maybe bogus sign ups are more likely.”

    I’d agree. When I looked at about 11 o’clock last night UK time, Monckton, Montford and Delingpole were allegedly the latest sign ups.

  45. #45 mike
    October 8, 2010


    Hi, Chek! First Wow and now you, Chek. Life is good.

    This post is one of your best yet, maybe even the very best. The thing I like most about the post is that it is a full, brilliant display of your many dimensions: seer, prophet, judge, jury, executioner, witch hunter, commissar, devil’s advocate, grand inquisitor, mad scientist, prima donna, town gossip, mama’s boy, spoiled brat, village idiot, and pest. A classic of its kind, really.

    Fallujah=Dresden, Baba Yar? And how do we know? Chek has heard some rumours. Case closed. Lock’em up. Let’s see now Chek, Baba Yar was on Hitler’s watch. But Dresden? Who were the heads of government responsible for Dresden, Chek? I can never remember. But whoever they were they must be equal to Hitler, right? Isn’t that how Chek-logic works?

  46. #46 DesertHedgehog
    October 8, 2010

    Despite the far, far, far OT and boring moralising going on in many comments above, I’ll just note that the little video was…well…hilarious.

    [And if people remember things like Mr. Creosote…or the Young Ones…why has no one brought up the SCTV classic line, “They blowed up good!”…?]

  47. #47 Paul UK
    October 8, 2010

    >I’d agree. When I looked at about 11 o’clock last night UK time, Monckton, Montford and Delingpole were allegedly the latest sign ups.

    It’s gone down from about 95,000 to about 73,000 in a few hours. That doesn’t seem right.

    Could it have been hacked?
    Is it easy to un-sign once you have joined?

  48. #48 Paul UK
    October 8, 2010

    Well I just signed up for 10:10 and there doesn’t appear to be a mechanism to be removed via email or the web site.

    So either:

    1. The site is hacked.
    2. 10:10 are removing vast numbers of bogus signups
    3. 10:10 are removing vast numbers because people are asking to be removed as a result of the video.

  49. #49 Paul UK
    October 8, 2010

    I refer to the UK site in my last post, not the global one.

  50. #50 chek
    October 9, 2010

    Between 22:00 and 23:46, Franco,Mussollini,Hitler,Stalin and Pauline Pot were jokingly signed up.

    Elsewhere, children and smiling, enthusiastic people trying to make a difference and improve the future, are having their picture taken planting trees.

    That seems a damn effective delineation of the difference, to me.

  51. #51 Paul UK
    October 10, 2010

    The count seems to be going up again at a slower rate, from the 73,000s. I don’t know what the count was before the video.
    They seem to be still collecting cities and local government signing up.

  52. #52 Rick Bradford
    October 10, 2010

    Britons are less environmentally conscious than they were five years ago, with twice as many people now “bored” by talk of climate change as in 2005, [according to a report by market researchers Mintel].

    Experts warn that green fatigue is a major reason why there are more cars on the roads, more planes in the sky and no reduction in the mountain of packaging waste.

    Analysts believe the recession together with a backlash against “extreme” environmentalist pressure has reduced people’s enthusiasm to combat climate change.

    “Climate change is important, but the people who are more extreme have split everyone into two camps,” one respondee noted.

    The Splattergate video isn’t going to help; time for another struggle meeting……

  53. #53 Dave R
    October 10, 2010

    >according to a report by market researchers … Experts warn … Analysts believe … one respondee noted

    Instead of posting more vacuous drivel like the above, why don’t you try to address [the questions you’ve repeatedly run away from](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2834591) on the thread you tried to troll earlier?

  54. #54 Paul UK
    October 10, 2010

    The UK 10:10 count is back up to 96,000 plus, from 73,000 or so.

    They certainly have major issues with the software and web site, whatever they are.

  55. #55 Wow
    October 11, 2010

    > but it remains that Iraq was invaded without even the fig leaf of UN authority as step two in a gamble for regional dominance.

    Uh, it was more than that, it was the defence of the US monetary system.

    Iraq were trading internationally in Euros.

    This is not good for the dollar.

    Note the “Axis of Evil”. Iraq. Iran (also trading oil in Euros, other trade in USD). North Korea (ditto) and Venezuela.

    Note the last one there.

    It always seemed out of place to me, but when someone pointed out that Venzeula was trading oil in Euros and was going to, like Iraq, trade all international trade in Euros rather than the US Dollar, it made sense.

    Iraq was nothing more than a punishment beating to get all the countries in line and trading in dollars.

  56. #56 chek
    October 11, 2010

    I’d agree that is a strong likely factor Wow, but I’d also suggest that the international financial system is a largely notional if widely accepted virtual construct.
    Players trust that the figures on their screens will be honoured, but they hold nothing tangible.

    Having boots and tanks on the ground to claim actual physical commodities and assets (as per the Brzezinski ‘doctrine’ whether oil, grain or forseeably even water) counts for more in terms of strategic power, at least in the short term.

  57. #57 Wow
    October 11, 2010

    > but I’d also suggest that the international financial system is a largely notional if widely accepted virtual construct.

    And the movement of international trade to USD from UKP was a major factor in creating the US as a superpower (as the UK was before they gave it up to pay for US aid).

    It means you can print money and people HAVE to buy it.

    But the Euro is becoming a better bet and many countries have discussed moving to it. Oil trade in the Middle East is a no-brainer especially for those where the Western Involvements have caused problems. After all, you get in trouble if you deal with The Great Satan (which is hyperbole, but that’s politics).

    > counts for more in terms of strategic power, at least in the short term.

    But it counts for NOTHING internationally. It’s the merest speed-bump for most, but when the US invaded Iraq and publicly crushed them, those with american bases in their country had to have second thoughts about bucking US interests.

    And why the boots and tanks? In order that US dollars and US interests are listened to.

    Which the punishment beating of Iraq ensured was put forefront.

    I accept the international politics, but abhor the hypocrisy. Admit that politics is merely the continuation of war and that you aren’t “the leader of the free world” but merely the biggest player, looking out for your own interests.

    As does every country.

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    October 15, 2010

    In case anyone missed it, [Anthony Watts had this to say](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/#comment-504236) to Phil Clarke when he freely admitted that he had signed 10:10’s signy thingy:

    …it is truly sad to see that you support such idiots that [sic] make child snuff films – Anthony.

    That’s a big call, Watts.

    From what dim, dank dungeon did you dredge up that dark descriptor?

  59. #59 Paul UK
    October 17, 2010

    Bernard J

    Your Watts link is broken.
    Or has Watts removed the post?

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    October 18, 2010

    [Paul UK](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2862817).

    The time-stamp on the Watts thread is “October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm”.

    The link in my [previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2861164) is the same as the one attached to the time-stamp:


    so I am not sure why it doesn’t work, but if you follow the date/time or simply search for “snuff”, it should come up.

    I’ve saved the page in case Watts removes his comment.

  61. #62 Captain Sensible
    October 22, 2010


    As much I respect your right to hold an opinion, the views you are expressing are extremely damaging to the environmental cause we presume you to support.

    Bill McKibben of 350.org quickly identified the video for what it is and condemned it as the rantings of an extremist fringe.

    It is a common feature of extremists that they believe they are following a noble cause and the ends will justify the means. If your cause is saving the world, is it not logical that any means necessary are justified to achieve it? Only the week before the video there was the eco-terrorist gunman James Jay Lee in America. Greenpeace recently used the “we know where you live” line to warn deniers.

    Luckily, extremists who think it should actually go that far are presently in the minority. But their presence is having a pernicious influence on the wider environmental movement.
    There is a tendency towards intolerance and dehumanisation of any dissent or scepticism. An attempt to make it socially unacceptable and accusations of evil by an allusion to holocaust “deniers”.

    And it’s already happening. Many teachers already do political advocacy for Green politics, and it would be a brave child who stood up against a teacher and the rest of the class to express a contrary view. Employers already do the same, mostly for more cynical reasons it has to be said, and there are few employees independent enough to speak up against the boss.

    No, mostly people will stick their hands up in support in public, and then ignore it in private. They don’t believe, but they’re not going to make their own lives any harder by opposing it.

    But that’s the first step in social conditioning which occurs in
    authoritarian societies. Once you have made it socially unacceptable to speak in defence of an opposing view, you can then introduce stronger methods of encouragement without anyone being able to object. Not execution,of course, but regulation and compulsion to authority.

    And that’s what scares people about this video – that it portrays a
    ridiculously exaggerated version of this already worrying tendency.
    No one is worried that the greenies are actually planning to splatter sceptics, they’re worried that some in the environmental movement have reached a mindset where they now openly advertise it as humour. Where they don’t even notice the message being advocated is the authoritarian use of horrific threat.

    The scariest part of the splattergate video is not the explosions, but the authority figure’s (teacher, employer) speech leading up to it.

  62. #63 jakerman
    October 22, 2010

    Capitan sensible are you concerned at the authoritarian rules than prevent murder and slavery?

    Teachers promote these authoritarian rules and it would be a brave student who stood up to that.

    Are you concerned that people in positions of power push authoritarian rules about how we can live together, like not dumping your trash on the street or not dumping chemicals in the river?

    I think you need to be more concerned with anti-democratic authoritarianism such as concentration of media ownership, and the power exerted by extreme concentration of wealth in the political process.

    You are way off the mark picking on this pythonesk joke sketch.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.