"Not in my name, Tony, you great war leader you
Terror is still terror, whosoever gets to frame the rules
History's not written by the vanquished or the damned
Now we are Genghis Khan, Lucretia Borghia, Son of Sam
In 1961 they took this child into their home
I wonder what became of them
In the cauldron that was Lebanon
If I could find them now, could I make amends?
How does the story end?"

-- Roger Waters, "Leaving Beirut" (2006)

Favorite part is the contrast between 11:37 John Wayne as Genghis Khan and 11:44 Meryl Streep as Julia Child. Awesome.

1 in 200 might be related to him?


So Miike Snow might actually BE a little bit Ghengis Khan...

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

I get a little bit Genghis Khan...
I don't want you to get it on...
With nobody else but me...

I find a lot of these complaints to be pretty silly. Particularly the roles of 40+ years ago, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan, etc.

And The Last Samurai is awesome. OK, Tom Cruise (white guy) is the main character -- because he is a lens through which an American audience can reflect on the respect that he gains for the real (Japanese) samurai. All the roles that the script/plot dictates should be played by Japanese people are. I'd even argue that the title doesn't refer to Tom Cruise's Nathan Algren, but rather to the whole group of samurai (notice how the word can be plural or singular) led by Ken Watanabe's Katsumoto.

There are some (plenty of?) legit gripes about "whitewashing" movies, but accusing movies like the The Last Samurai of it (when they are actually doing things exactly right and making a movie FULL of non-white roles played by non-white people) seems counterproductive to the argument...

I would be curios to see how many Mongolian actors that applied for the part in 1956 for Genghis Khan.

Laughed out loud at John Wayne as Genghis Khan.
*quality ending

Your video, Miike Snow - Genghis Khan, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@cosmovitelli, I'm still not seeing any hard facts from you. Yes, those are all awful things, but you are alleging that these people are demonstrably worse than Hitler (systematically killed at least 6 million Jews, arguably responsible for the largest conflict the world has ever seen), Stalin (murdered, tortured and deported .... well, no-one knows, but estimates range from 3 to 60 million) and Genghis Khan (killed a sizeable percentage of the worlds population at the time).

Also, you are aggregating the acts of every US president since Truman vs the acts of 3 individuals.

That's an extraordinary claim, and I think you need to provide some facts and figures to back it up.

Reagan, Bush et al were certainly not nice guys, but try to keep a sense of perspective. They are not in anyway comparable to Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

If you're going to make statements like that, you need to back up your argument with some facts.

Reagan was just the first stooge hired by the remnants of the Nixon administration. (By Bush Snr {his head of the CIA}, Donald Rumsfeld {2nd in command of the CIA} & Dick Cheney {3rd in command of the CIA}).

Literally an actor. And a 3rd rate cowboy actor at that (only for domestic & retarded audiences).

BTW Dubya was next & a gift to these fellas, none of them dumb enough to be the man out front making excuses.

They decided that a few million dead kids was fine if it swelled the family pile by 20%. Vietnam, East Timor, Iran Chile etc etc etc etc
.....Does anyone really know how much bank Cheney made from the slaughter/'rebuilding' in Iraq? A billion? 10 billion? 100 Billion? Will any American ever ask? Guess not.

In the future analysis of this time, these men will be held up worse that than Hitler, Stalin & Genghis Khan for sure. Their crimes are comparable in every way (especially the massive piles of dead kids) but without the personal trauma to explain psychosis. The US government of the last 50 years consists of the richest, fattest, most privileged men ever to live in millions of years of humanity, and yet they've committed the worst crimes of all time. Millions dead, crippled, traumatized, orphaned.
Is it their fault or the fault of those around them who do nothing or worse; cheer?

Dude how hard is it to follow this guy and hit him in the back of the legs with a baseball bat. Yeah it's wrong to commit violence on people, it is absolutely wrong. That is exactly what happens when cops don't do their job and stop this bastard from extorting people. I can't believe you put up with this for 2 and a half years without making threats or following through with them on your own. Heck even a warning brick through the window would force the cops to at least come around there and have more of a presence, thus stopping this practice.

Look we're not as evolved as we would like to believe, the level of morality is no greater than it was when Genghis Khan was about. Step the fuck up, if you don't want to hurt anyone fine but you should do something if the police don't step up.

>> ^persephone:

This is an excellent series. I saw it recently, after watching a similar doco last year,'On the Trail of Genghis Khan', by an Australian who rode from Mongolia to Hungary on a horse. Both fascinating, yet very different. The motorbike trek took 3 months, the horse trek took three years. Ewan and his friend Charlie had huge amounts of expensive equipment and a support crew. Tim had three horses, a tent, a dog and a satelite phone. Each had their own unique set of problems. All of them were pushed to new limits. Excellent stuff.


What I like about the trail of Genghis Khan comparison is the fact that Horses and Motorcycles are very much the same. Motorcycle is just a modern version of a horse, with some of the same trappings such as leather and a cowboy loner outsider sort of image attached to it.