Saturday, April 26, 2014

LHC black hole: a catastrophic movie

It was sort of inevitable that tonight, I would be watching a catastrophic movie on TV Prima (in Czech dubbing) about the LHC black hole. The original name of the 2013 German-Austrian film is
Helden – Wenn dein Land dich braucht (Heroes: When Your Country Needs You, IMDB)

Trailer in German: click here
The movie by the commercial TV station RTL that got mostly negative reviews is 140 minutes long – a big movie, indeed. The budget was €8 million i.e. $11 million – a lot. The very topic, the deadly LHC black hole, was silly so I had known that it would be scientificially implausible. But what surprised me that the filmmakers also hold manifestly Luddite, anti-scientific and anti-technological sentiments. Technology has surpassed the humanity a long time ago. It is a sin for humans to continue the research like that, and so on. All this stinky crap.

Also, some captions in the movie say that "it is no science-fiction". Instead, "it may really happen". Well, it can't.



Pictured are the heroes who manage to win the fight against the arrogant villains, the CERN physicists, and save the world.

Spoilers: beware

A group of small schoolgirls is visiting the world's largest collider. It isn't called the LHC in the movie – probably because the filmmakers were afraid that they could be sued – but the collider happens to be in Geneva, too. It is huge but a little bit different than the LHC. So the beams – looking like two blue laser beams – collide in front of your eyes. They claim to collide atoms, not protons (it's probably not easy to accelerate them) but they are just upgrading the energy to \(14\TeV\), too.

A girl on the excursion suddenly sees that some M&M's are floating in front of her eyes. Later, we see two brothers whose countryside house (along with the legs of one brother) is destroyed by an object from space. I was afraid that it would be a "piece of a black hole" but fortunately, it turned out to be a satellite whose trajectory got deflected by a new force. Another satellite destroys the Reichstag; it is not a big deal because soon or later, a Bulgarian activist would have to do this job, anyway.

Airplanes in Berlin start to crash, and so on. You get the picture. So an ingenious heroic (obviously female) physicist, formerly employed by CERN, called Sophie recalls her theory and immediately gets in touch with the (male) German chancellor. He has no clue about physics (unlike Merkel) but he is quickly asked to turn off the LHC. I didn't know that it's the German chancellor who is turning the LHC on and off but this improvement of the legal status has probably pleased the patriotic German TV audiences. ;-)




However, the German chancellor can't turn the experiment off because his Swiss subordinates have lost the contact with the LHC. So the LHC keeps on running happily. Previously, the "arrogant" LHC scientists – who play games pretending that they are gods (the main heroes, a Christian priest, and a Muslim apparatchik all agreed that it's a sin for humans to do experimental physics) – would dare to celebrate the upgrade to \(14\TeV\) while looking at the LHC beams. There was an accident at the LHC that damaged most of Geneva (you could see the huge black hole at the intersection of the beams) but it wasn't a problem for Rolf Heuer to extinguish the small fire while the 100-meter-deep trench along the LHC's circumference was being formed. ;-)




So the mechanism is clear. The black hole was created and it deflected the M&M's and airplanes and satellites and so on. The fact that such an evolution contradicts the equivalence principle (M&M's should accelerate just like the nearby girl), the mass conservation law (you can't really create a new heavy object out of almost nothing), and the law about the constant motion of the center-of-mass doesn't matter.

I know that this movie is supposed to be tragic and catastrophic but I admit that I have been laughing most of the time so far (and be sure that catastrophic movies with humans involved – even if some kitschy climate-change-like hysteria is involved – often make me cry). Sometimes the scenes are sad and mundane for a while – overloaded hospitals, extra appendicitis (the surgery has to be done by a nurse at the end), and so on. But then they return to the LHC tunnel and discuss that the black hole is probably "behind this door". The black hole has to be bombed by NATO so that it "collapses" (a black hole, almost by definition, is the maximally collapsed form of matter; you can't make it collapse even more than it already is). When I hear sentences like that with 5 distinct misunderstandings of basic physics, I just have to laugh.

In the remaining 2 hours of the movie, they will have to drop a piece of software that turns off the LHC from some airplane, or something like that (maybe the teenage hacker who is also stealing motorbikes will help them?). I will stop blogging and continue watching because I am pretty curious what they can do in the remaining 2 hours so that the movie isn't a boring redundant junk – which it may be. (Oh, I see: much of the last 2 hours is about their drinking beer, belching, having sex, and talking about the matches of FC Schalke: many of the heroes who saved the world are fans of this soccer team. Some new mountains are created in Germany within seconds; Mount Germany separates Germany to South and North Germany. Youth is happy and feels romantic in a world where electronic devices have been destroyed by EMP. And so on.)

At any rate, many of the effects are visually impressive. Quite a contrast with the Luddite, anti-scientific message of the film. It's also funny how the filmmakers like to reshape every physics question to the length scale of 5 meters and the energy scale of a few megajoules, not acknowledging (and perhaps not realizing) that the interval of length scales and energy scales that physicists actually deal with spans dozens of orders of magnitude on the log scale.

People with some basic knowledge of particle physics may watch this film and include it among comedies about the human stupidity. But you are free to find additional dimensions in the film. But I think that the lousiness of this movie went well beyond their ludicrous opinions about physics and the scientific method. Too many characters that mostly served no purpose, for example. Bad acting. Cheap stories about the tragedies. One could be frustrated by seeing that many people – even in the cultural "front" of the would-be pro-scientific European continent – are so hostile to particle physics. But if you realize that this movie has become a complete failure with the viewers and critics, the sorrow turns into smile and you may even feel some sympathy with the makers of this movie because they're anti-physics but they still decided to have something to do with particle physics and they paid the price.

They're like the cheeky teenage daughter stuck in the LHC tunnel who told her mother that she was not interested in all that science junk and now she had to suffer. Her mother slapped her in her face and the daughter deserved it. The makers of the film were slapped in their faces as well and they mostly deserved it, too.

47 comments:

  1. I was just piecewise watching an ice-hockey match. If you mean languages, I am not into languages at all and Czech, Slovak, and some English are the only languages I can speak fluently enough.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Dilaton, it just ended right now. I am still laughing because it has combined all the features of a trash movie - and all the irrational delusions of the stupidest people about science and its meaning and strategy - in such a way that it's almost perfect.


    In the last minutes, the main heroes made it to the LHC tunnel. The heroic former CERN physicist Sophie used the laptop of the teenage hacker and thief to connect to the black hole in front of her that was sucking the whole planet. Meanwhile, Rolf Heuer, the CERN director, jumped at her and began to fight: you can't turn my LHC off. It's my LHC! So she threw him to the black hole and turned off the LHC beam. The black hole suddenly ceased to exist and everyone was saved.


    The German chancellor gave a talk about the mighty German saviors and the German unity, emphasizing that the mankind wasn't wise enough when it dared to do things like experimental physics which only God is allowed to do. ;-) Hysterical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John F. HultquistApr 26, 2014, 11:03:00 PM

    Thanks for the review – I think I
    might skip this one.

    Al Gore and friends are doing a whole $20M series called Years of Living Dangerously and could use a few viewers. WUWT on April 22 had viewer numbers for one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear John, you would have learned this number on my blog weeks before Watts' blog. See:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/04/years-of-living-dangerously.html?m=1



    The first episode was watched by 294,000 people only. It dropped to 1/2 in the second episode and I guess it will keep on decreasing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry for the grave insult, spelling Czech wrong.


    You still have my admiration. It is a continental thing, being polygoths!

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a huge misunderstanding here, Lubos. You spoke of a ban on the broadcast of “content” that is paid for by foreigners. If you had referred to licensing restrictions I would not have been surprised at all.


    A broadcast license confers a gift of public property (bandwidth) and it restricts others from employing the same frequency band. In fact, the government will come after you if you try to infringe on frequencies allocated by license to someone else. You don’t want to do that.


    On the other hand, restricting content that is financed by foreigners is unenforceable without censoring the content of every single broadcast. How would you even know who had paid without total government control?
    I am not familiar with US (FCC) licensing rules but I would bet that there are no similar restrictions unless they are done tit-for-tat as a political response. In the current, ridiculous cold war scene that is surely possible.


    I do understand that freedom of the press is more cherished in the US than in russia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RT is a propaganda mouthpiece for Putin.
    Yes, occasionally a good story is produced, but not very often. Of course they should be allowed to continue to spew their venom, but they have to accept some commentary thereupon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So I suppose you also think it was all ok for the Russians to roll their tanks into CS in 68?

    After all, they were just looking after their threatened brethren...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Funny! A conspiracy again!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lubus, I really cannot understand your understanding of Russian motives and actions.
    Considering that Russia for 800 years has been a threat and a menace to the West (incl Poland, Sweden, Finland, etc), it is clear that the enemy is always coming from the east. One cannot never trust Russia (ask anyone who has tried).
    Russia has always been an imperialist and totalitarian country, and always will be. The best we can do is to minimize its power as much as we can.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Irak was a very different story for two reason.

    We had the Green foreign minister Fischer and the core of their politics and especially his was to hate US Republicans. At that time, there was a large green left majority in Europe and important other players, such as France and Italy shared Fischers feelings. Opposition of an Irak war was just the opportunity to to hurt US Republicans and eventually contribute to a regime change over there.

    (Actually, I think they also hate Putin so much, because he is similar to Reagan in some ways, as pro family, pro Christian, pro German, national, anti drugs, anti intervention, and so on)

    It was revealed years later, that the German secret service and Fischer knew, that Powell was wrong during his infamous speech about weapons of mass destruction at the UN. But Fischer, who chaired that session with the little hammer, did not say a word.

    The other reason is Merkel's personality, as I already said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That is just silly.

    Ask Napoleon or Hitler where they came from. Look where Marxism was invented and where Lenin came from or Stalin. Or those poor Krim Tartars, whose main source of income over centuries up until almost modern times was to enslave and sell people in Southern Russia and Ukraine.

    Look how many wars have been fought in Europe without any Russian participation.

    During those 800 years, many people immigrated from western Europe into Russia and lived and prospered there alongside the locals.

    That comment tells me a lot about the disturbing influence of media brainwash in "our" part of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When I mentioned the opposition to invading Iraq, I wasn't just talking about Germany, but Europe in general. Weren't the French very opposed?

    Who among the West European leaders is supporting Russia now? To me this is the sign that they are to a significant degree in agreement with the US position, and Ms. Merkel herself has certainly given enough reasons to believe that, whatever her personality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder what the professor thought about the right to self-determination when Chechnya was drained in blood. Do you know if he has any writings on the subject? If they exist, they would be a useful gauge of his intellectual integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. People like disaster movies. There is a german word for for it....

    Actually the BH was just a tunneled partial manifestation lensed here by the galaxy center.
    Its about 100 light years opposite the solar system.

    The laser pusher coherent gravitons from the
    Dark mass dimension into our 3 dim world.

    The gravitons were contained by an attraction to
    The super magnets. All the bomb has to do was break the coherence and the gravity transfer was stopped. The coherent beams which move around with the moon caused all the problems.

    The bomb had a precise charge sequence to set up the correct resonance to break the coherent tunneling to the opposing black hole.

    The final break of the field is what pushed up the mountains.

    This is all classified so please keep it to yourself.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is one important difference between Russia and many EU members. Russia under Putin is eradicating viable opposition, making it effectively a one-party state. So, whatever one thinks about the EU, its members are not like Russia in this important respect.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey is not chernybol close to Kiev. Yes it is.

    Maybe there is some side effect from the rad.
    Or maybe Kiev is just mad at the rus for ruining their strawberry jam production.

    With 15k troops surrounding a few rus with stick
    Its like they are trying to provoke the rus army.

    How many rus-ukrane will they have to kill before the rus invades. Are they trying to start ww3.
    It sure looks like it.

    Maybe if UK is split and the west joins NATO they will
    Get the money to clean up chernobol.

    Fresh jam from ukrane. Any one its free as long as you join the study.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Gene, sorry for my misleading words - I don't really know why I used the word "content" so prominently.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear JohaniKanada, if you call this "conspiracy", then indeed, the U.S. agencies (and others) are creating similar conspiracies more or less every day - it's their day-to-day job.


    I would personally bet 10-to-1 that Oleg's explanation of this one is right as well and the lady who produced the on-air resignation bombshell had communicated about this from someone more influential than herself in the U.S. (where she was located) before she did the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear JohaniKanada,


    it's simple. I just view the hateful xenophobic opinions you present to be both lies and a trademark of the most stupidest people on Earth - like yourself. Please, this is not to offend you, this is to clarify the situation as accurately as possible.


    Your opinion is Russia is a hardwired villain that's been villain since the beginning - 800 years - and will always be is exactly on par with anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism of the people who were directing the Holocaust.


    It is not clear to me how you sleep with this hatred but the historical comments you offer are totally incompatible with what we know here in Czechia.


    Russia has never been a threat for 1,000 years here. We were controlled by Germans and Austrians most of the time, had minor territorial disputes with the Poles, were betrayed by and handed out to Hitler by our French and British allies, and now we are harassed by the international "Belgians".


    Russia hasn't been a threat for us before the late 1940s at all. In the national revival, Russian Empire - viewed as a slightly less developed Eastern counterpart of the French kingdom - helped the intellectuals to fill some holes in the Czech language that wasn't used by too many intellectuals before they began with the reforms. In 1945, most of Czechoslovakia was liberated by the USSR.


    Our only bad experience comes from 1968 when Czechoslovakia was occupied by the Warsaw Pact of 5 communist countries - USSR, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria - and the remaining four apparently want to forget about their pretty much equal (intensively speaking) role - and this was clearly an act of international communism, not an act of a nation following from its national character.


    But even if one thinks about nations that *did* actually reduce our dignity, sovereignty, independence, and threatened our existence at various (most/special) moments of the 1,000-year history, like the Germans, you know, I just don't feel any general hatred that would make me act against Germans all the time. I think that this form of nationalist knee-jerk reaction is just stupid beyond imagination, evil and dangerous. I think that your thinking is stupid beyond imagination, evil, and dangerous. Russia is just fine with me and they're also Slavs - and the grouping of nations may be a stronger (minor) perspective than defines my identity than the EU membership, for example. I think that the EU membership emotionally means nothing. It is a purely bureaucratic institution that could bring good things but it is bringing us about the same number of bad things, too. But the EU nations are not "really" closer to us or me than some similar nations outside the EU - the Swiss, Norwegians, US, Israel, and a dozen of other nations that are probably closer to "us" than the (by their nature) most remote EU countries.

    ReplyDelete
  21. EU, Lenin, communism, Che, Germans... what has that got to do with what I wrote?

    And what lies do I present?

    You present zero arguments against my key point, i.e. that Russia has always been an imperialist and totalitarian country (and my prediction that it always will be).

    ReplyDelete
  22. I generally do not follow MSM. My assessment of Russia stems from studying history and close observation of current events (over the last 50 years).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Today RT does the same job for Putin, spreading his message around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You keep repeating that Czechs want Russia to invade Ukraine. Who cares? (50% of all Czechs are below average in any case...)



    Ukraine has every right to defend the integrity of its country, be from internal or external threats.

    ReplyDelete
  25. By quoting the most relevant historical facts, I've debunked 100% of your lies and I have explained why the rest of your attitude is all about irrational xenophobia and idiotic prejudices so that every other kid in the kindergarten may understand that; maybe you're illiterate which prevents you from seeing that.


    By the way, people who are using the word "imperialism" as a negative word are communist trash in my eyes. The word "imperialism" is derived from the word "empire" and describes the kind of politics that empires - large enough countries and civilizations - naturally do. There is nothing wrong about empires and their policies per se. Russia was the Russian Empire in its good old, pre-communist days. This linguistically means that its interests were "imperial" and if one wants to invent a label for a collection of all similar policies, it may very well be "imperialism". There is nothing "universally wrong" about any of these things.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I haven't said that "Czechs" want Russia to invade. Some Czechs want, some Czechs are strongly against it. We are a regular Western country like another.


    At any rate, this is not really our business so I agree that the right reaction is "who cares". The same reaction applies to Canadians and other nations that have nothing to do with these things.


    Note that I am not trying to spit on whole nations in between the lines in the way that you presented because unlike you, I am not a stinky piece of fascist shit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So I'm not entirely sure why you consider the Kiev "revolution" to be any less legitimate than any of the revolutions that took place in Eastern Europe against the communist regimes. I'm 100% sure the communists "won" all of the elections in the 40's, and I'm 100% sure that less than 50% of the population in each country took part in their respective national protests.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lubos,

    you've forgotten to mention the probably worst travesty - that the movie was mostly (or exclusively?) funded by public money :-D (According to their website, the investors were FILM UND MEDIENSTIFTUNG NRW, RTR AUSTRIA, FFF BAYERN, MEDIENBOARD BB, MFG BA-WÜ, NORDMEDIA, LAND SALZBURG.)

    Btw, it currently holds stellar rating 1.7 / 10 on IMDB, which ranks it in the bottom 100 worst movies of all time and possibly in the bottom 10 (only movies with at least 1500 ratings are listed there so we're not sure yet).

    And it's rated even much worse than most other monstrosities - if I use e.g. "shark disaster movies" as a benchmark, all of them are rated better, including for example the following jewels:

    Sharktopus (3.3)
    2-Headed Shark Attack (2.5)
    Sand Sharks (2.6)
    Dinoshark (3.1)
    (and the best of the best) Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark (3.3)

    All in all, the IMDB data give the impression that it must be really a remarkable achievement to make such terrible flick :-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Youth is happy and feels romantic in a world where electronic devices have been destroyed by EMP. "
    In the real world, youth would be rioting because to 99%+ of them, their cell phone trumps all other basic needs :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. There is one important difference between Russia and many EU members. Russia under Putin is eradicating viable opposition, making it effectively a one-party state. So, whatever one thinks about the EU, its members are not like Russia in this important respect.

    That's an interesting comment: interesting for its irrelevancy. What puzzles me though is your sleight of hand here: is it a deliberate ploy to confuse the EU with its member states, or simply some innocent but very loose thinking on your part? I prefer to think it's the latter.

    Sure, as far as I can tell the governments of EU member states are not eradicating "viable opposition" within in their own countries. Well, at least not in an overt way. (On the other hand, great stacking of the deck against public expression of opposition via other means is going on all the time.)

    But all that is entirely beside the point here since it's specifically the EU itself that we are talking about, NOT its member states.

    The EU is arrogating more and more power to itself with the ultimate aim of being the effective sole government of practically the whole of Europe, and even beyond — muslime Turkey for example! And it is doing this in a wholly illegitimate way, using its placemen and fellow travellers in the establishments and institutions of its member states to subvert democracy therein.

    A sine qua non for any democracy is that its countrymen accept rule by their so-called fellow nationals. I guess in most European countries this generally unproblematic. Obvious exceptions that spring to mind are Northern Ireland and some regions of Spain. (That many countries are experiencing an influx of hideously alien turd-worlders who are anything but 'fellow countrymen' is a separate but related issue.)

    One cannot simply throw a bunch of people together, give them each a vote and call it democracy if those people do not accept rule by each other. But this is precisely what the EU is in the process of doing. It is effectively hollowing out national governments, replacing their just powers with its own but cunningly leaving the 'shell' of national government in each instance in place in order to camouflage the massive power grab. The common people are left with the impression that they retain democratic control over their own governance but they have nothing of the sort and the real power lies elsewhere, in Brussels — as many have discovered in places like Greece and Ireland for example (the 'beneficial' euro crisis).

    Incidentally, one symptom of this is the general trivialisation of politics such as we are witnessing in the UK — a politics which is now no more than a moronic soap opera. The 'actors' have nothing to do except prat about pretending. In any event they are losing the experience of government and thus the capability operating as one. This of course suits this useless preening breed of professional parasite—they have more time to fiddle their expenses, take on outside 'consultancies' (i.e. bribes for rigging decisions) and shagging their secretaries. But more importantly, it suits the EU.

    So, talking about politics within individual states, unless your "viable opposition" were against the EU itself, even if it turned out that such an opposition were being eradicated by a present claque in office then what difference would it make when neither can actually govern? Answer: none. So your comparison is false.

    In short, again, the only valid comparison in your terms is between Russia and the EU itself. And in that, it is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Impressive data, thanks - I didn't know any of these things, it's interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I consider the coup in Ukraine illegitimate because the regime of the Party of Regions was fairly elected and the new regime is much less democratic and respectful towards the citizens' human rights than the regime that was overthrown.


    In 1989, we overthrew a totalitarian regime - that's not what the Maidan people have done. And we established a democratic regime with all people's enjoying the rights - that's not what the Maidan government is doing, either.


    So in this optics, I think that the events in Ukraine were the opposite thing than the revolutions in the late 1980s, and I find it deeply insulting that someone would dare to compare the angry, fascists-led mobs in Kiev to the stellar Velvet Revolution of ours.


    But even if you don't care about the difference between democracy and a national socialist regime lowering all citizens of "wrong" ethnic groups to 2nd class citizens, there are still additional huge differences.


    After the fall of communism in late 1989, Czechoslovakia would never use any tanks against any places that would favor the old regime etc. In fact, the whole Velvet Revolution was a result of negotiations with the personalities from the previous, communist regimes. They were not chased out of the country by militant fascist mobs as Yanukovitch was. All these things were results of negotiations - the communist apparatchiks just realized that their position and power had already weakened considerably. So they agreed with democratic elections and all other major things that were needed.


    The events in Ukraine have nothing to do with these things. The new class hasn't offered any negotiations to the Party of Regions or to the representatives of the Russian speaking citizens at all, for that matter. It is a nationalist regime that is apparently convinced that it has the right to perform ethnic cleansing in the territory of Ukraine, blockade whole cities with 120,000 citizens, and so on.


    You must be hopelessly blinded if you don't see any of the differences.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think it was my earlier remark that got your attention - "I say have Russia join the EU now, there's nothing more Putin would love
    than to see real democracy flourish in Russia, so it will definitely
    work." - from which you concluded that I regard the EU as having "real democracy".

    I am aware of the anti-democratic aspects of the EU, but this thread is about Russia, so I wasn't trying to be careful in my wording in that particular sentence, whose main goal was sarcasm. So, if I were you, I wouldn't get too excited over this.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Your lack of care doesn't excite me in the least. But then if you don't care what you say why bother saying it, and worse, why inflict it on others.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hmm, while I agree with your sentiment, you're forgetting about fapping and McD ...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear Lubos
    .
    I wonder why you wrote "Russia clearly has the greatest interest to protect the innocent citizens whose only "sin" is that they consider the Maidan regime an illegitimate government and want to be sure that it doesn't start to control their lives against their will and without their contribution to the decision who is in the government - because they are ethnic Russians and therefore close cousins to most of the citizens of the Russian Federation - so it's natural for Russia to do the work.
    .
    While almost everything is formally right, it is clearly NOT Russia's greatest interest.
    I prefer much more when you (correctly) analyse that Russia's behaviour is dictated by its size, its geography and its economical and military/strategical interests (e.g imperial policy) where any treaty or agreement MAY be considered toilet paper if it is not grounded on very solid and sustainable interests or threats that both parties share.
    You must surely see that what you wrote is just a propaganda that sounds right, is formally right (that's why it's good propaganda !) but doesn't correspond at all to the real motivations.
    .
    When the German government and medias glorified Heinlein and spoke about different rights and wishes of the Sudetendeutsche, they were also formally right in many points and it was also a good propaganda (proof : France and England genuinely believed it what gave us Munich).
    But it is known today that the German government and especially the army actually only had contempt for Heinlein and indifference for the Sudetendeutsche. Their real motivation was an imperial policy which (very rightly !) concluded that occupying Poland in common with Russia what was a strategical target, would be much easier with not having Czech mountain fortresses and armed forces like a thorn in their side. So Czechoslovakia was a problem, the innocent cousins the justification for the public and Munich the solution.
    The German will to "protect innocent citizens and German cousins" didn't extend f.ex to Estonia and Letonia who were expendables and delivered to Russia's brutality. Amusingly (?) they again became innocent citizens and cousins who had to be liberated when yet another piece of toilet paper went down the drain, e.g the Soviet-German non agression pact.
    It is also known today that Russia whould have torn it up anyway too, the only difference is that Russia estimated to be ready in 1942 while Germany was ready in 1941 so acted first.
    .
    Regarding Ukraine.
    I have rightly predicted and posted here that Crimea would be attached to Russia because it was the obvious thing that an imperial policy would make happen. Today's Russia is convinced that the West is weak just like yesterday's Germany was convinced that the West was weak. So when yesterday's Germany agreed with Russia that making Poland disappear was a good thing for both, it happened.
    Why is Putin going to China now? Because Russia thinks that unlike the West, China is not weak and its opinion matters.
    That's why I make another prediction - I do not think that China will consider that making East Ukraine disappear is a good thing for both because then parts of China might disappear too. That's why I predict that Russia will not invade East Ukraine even if it might use its position of strength to sign some advantageous toilet papers with Ukraine and/or Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Another satellite destroys the Reichstag; it is not a big deal because soon or later, a Bulgarian activist would have to do this job, anyway.
    ROFL, I am still laughing. Brilliant :) But ... Lubos are you sure that the majority of your readership which comes from US understood it too ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, Tom, I doubt it is generally comprehensible outside the "Greater Germany".


    But the originality of the scene on TV made me LOL, too - perhaps partly because we're not used to these symbols of German power to share the fate with the U.S. power centers in Hollywood movies (we're not used because Hollywood movies seem to outnumber German ones by a large margin); and that the Reichstag didn't suffer for the first time so it's not such a science-fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yours is a breathtakingly myopic view of history.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Linda,
    Your comments are insightful. I hope you become a regular contributor to TRF.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Today we could se a great 1 may parade on the Red Square in Moscow. A lot of human trash holding in their hands portraits of various bandits like Putin, Stalin, Lenin, Yezhov, Beria and even.... Kim Jong-un:
    http://i.imgur.com/Cda6dz2.jpg


    You should feel great in this nice company, mr Motl. You surely regret that you weren't there to hold a flag with a hammer and a sickle - a beautiful symbol of russian liberal democracy, as you call it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think, this is a rather good opinion about the conflict in Ukraine


    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.taz.de/!137733/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.taz.de/Russland-Forscher-ueber-die-Ukrainekrise/!137733%253Bm/%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D709

    ReplyDelete
  43. Interesting take on the US outlook to all of this: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/borderlands-new-strategic-landscape?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140506&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=title

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The United States had a deep interest in making certain that the Eurasian landmass would not fall under the control of any single nation."

    Ah! It's nice to know others appreciated the problem. Yes, it's one that had been bothering us on and off for about a thousand years now. It still does.

    Incidentally, it's getting pretty bad again: our body politic has even been infiltrated by traitors who signed us up to the EU, an übergulag in the making.

    No need for panic though. A couple of nukes on Brussels and Westminster should sort it all out.

    Now where's that button...?

    WAIT! One thing puzzles me. Why is the US administration so friendly with the EU?

    "The American fear of a Eurasian hegemon is also a distant one."

    Unh? What does it think the EU is? A glee club?

    Look here, I think maybe you should start looking for tranzi traitors in the US too. Nuke that UN building first though to shorten your search — it attracts the buggers like flies.

    ReplyDelete
  45. John,

    First, I do get the factual basis for your sarcasm. Second, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the link, but I thought overall it was a fairly good analysis. Lastly, perhaps you should consider that the US did and continues to support the EU precisely because it is believed to be an ultimately weak and ineffectual organization, thus helping to fulfill the US goal that the Eurasian landmass would not fall under the control of any single nation. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  46. I thought it was a good link too. I should have said so.

    I was simply affirming my utter detestation for the EU and all its works.

    And just so know, there's NOTHING anti-Yank about me. Quite the contrary. Your current administration is an entirely different matter though. But I understand I might not be alone in that, especially in the good ol' US of A. ;) :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. P.S.

    "When facing a potential existential threat, the prudent action is to overreact."

    Quite so. But there's no need to go the whole hog immediately. First we simply request all muslimes and third-worlders that the traitors let in leave the West. If they comply then that is enough. If not then we can "overreact", as you wisely recommend.

    ReplyDelete