George Monbiot, the author and columnist for the Guardian once again provoked ire in the infowar yesterday in joining a call by a group of academics for a world government. http://www.infowars.com/minor-league-ngo-calls-for-globalist-imposed-democracy/
As someone who has followed Monbiot's career for a long time and been a regular reader of his books and columns but also as an almost daily listener to the Alex Jones show I wanted to share some thoughts about him and provide some information that people may not know. It is highly possible that Alex will have him on as a guest on the show and I think there are some important things to know before that happens. This is not an article in defence of him, rather just a discussion of how I'm trying to fit things together in my mind.
What most infowars readers/alex jones show listeners generally know about Monbiot is this:
1. He launched a sustained attack on 911 truth
2. He is one of the leading proponents of the climate change, global warming movement in the UK
3. He wrote a book calling for a global world government (albeit democratic) called "Manifesto for a New World Order"
From these facts, he might as well have founded the Bilderberg group, since it seems that the only logical conclusion to draw is that he is some kind of operative or at the very least a gatekeeper. My opinion which I'd like to leave open to discussion in this thread is that he is almost certainly not an operative. He is a very well-intentioned, intelligent activist who overwhelmingly has been a force for positive change in the UK. However, I do agree that he is a gatekeeper but an unconscious one as many are. Before you skip to the end of this post and call me an operative, I urge you just to at least skim my reasons for thinking this. I will first address the above 3 issues and then give a little more information about Monbiot you may not know. I would add that I personally believe that 911 was at the very least LIHOP, probably MIHOP, I am open on climate change but believe the cause has certainly been hijacked and used by global power elites, and I am opposed to an imposed global government, I would favour stronger national sovereignty and strengthened individual rights and liberties.
1. 911- I don't agree with Monbiot's attacks on 911. There is an explanation but what was strange was how little research he did before launching into what was quite a vitriolic attack. Forget global warming and global governance. The way Monbiot has made his name in the UK in the latter part of his career has been battling corporate influence in Britain and its merging with the state. On this subject, I have not come across a better book than his "Captive State - The Corporate Takeover of Britain". Go to www.monbiot.com
and read his past articles. You will see what I mean. He has been one of the most vocal critics of Iraq and of much of our foreign policy. See this recent interview with Hazel Blears a British cabinet minister - http://it.truveo.com/monbiot-meets-hazel-blears/id/858190355
and this article written in 2003 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/01/07/the-time-for-talking-is-over/
. Among many other things he has addressed the war on terror and government fear-mongering, monsanto and gm, corporations taking over education,pfi and ppp, advertising, civil rights/liberties, supermarket chain dominance and the media. So why am I talking about this? How does it relate to 911? Well the main thing he has fought against and railed against in his writings is public apathy. We are rapidly sliding into fascism and no one seems to care. He is focused on many areas which get no reaction from the public and suddenly he is swamped by people who are obsessed with one issue, 911. Don't get me wrong, I think we are right to be obsessed, I just want to show you how it appears from his perspective. He decides early on that he doesn't agree (in my opinion without doing adequate research and largely relying on straw men and outdated attacks) and vents his pent up fury on the 911 truth community because as it seems to him, suddenly from no one being remotely interested in the kinds of issues he is promoting, thousands of people who have not had much experience in activism fixate on one issue that he considers to be a diversion. If you read his articles, his rage is mostly directed at the fact that he thinks 911 is diverting people from real issues. What are those real issues? Well with the exception of global warming, pretty much what Alex Jones covers day to day on his show but for the UK. Just to make it clear, I disagree with him on 911 but understand the possible reasons for his attacks.
2. Climate change/Global Warming. I don't want to make this a discussion about the science of Global warming. The relevant point here is how the issue is being used. Alex Jones is convinced it is a made up theory, Monbiot is convinced climate change is man made. However, they agree on the important issue. They both spend a lot of time trying to explain to people how the global power structure is using the issue to further their own agenda. Monbiot is probably the leading authority and the journalist who has spent the most time exposing how in almost every way, every measure that has been put forward by the government is either a complete scam and subterfuge or a means of achieving some other goal unrelated to global warming. Agree with him or not, he is sincere in his belief that climate change is man made and is just as angry that the cause has been betrayed by the global elite interests who have hijacked it.
3. Global Government and his book "The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order". - Well this made me think twice and really try to reassess what I know about him. He really ought to be aware what the phrase New World Order means to so many people and historically. Well I'll leave it up to you to decide. However, the book is born out of frustration that so much injustice takes place in the world. I disagree with his conclusions but I agree with his sentiment. He certainly has more socialist leanings than me. I would veer more towards libertarianism. However, just as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich agree on so many things like foreign policy and civil liberties, just because they fall on different sides of the political spectrum, does not make one of them an operative. Those who have traditionally taken a more anti-government stance in the UK have tended to be more socialist, and remember that Europe in general is far more socialist than the US. Incidentally, or coincidentally as I should say, one of the quotes recommending the book is by Michael Meacher, the UK MP who was so vocal about 911 being an inside job.
Finally, I would recommend just reading his Wikipedia entry. He started out exposing corrupt regimes as an investigative reporter in foreign countries including the Suharto regime in Indonesia which had intimate arms ties back to the UK. He still exposes our support of brutal regimes such as the leader of Uzbekistan who would boil dissidents alive. If you read the guardian, you will find that even though it is responsible for a big proportion of the pitifully small amount of what passes as good reporting in the mainstream media, it is still a very biased newspaper. However, Monbiot's contributions have always been principled and contrary to most of the rest of the press.
So I believe he is well-intentioned with integrity and a lot of achievement. However, I disagree with him on many points and I think that for whatever reason, like many other well-intentioned journalists, while exposing conspiracy in many forms, he refuses to acknowledge the wider conspiracy and the presence of a particular agenda which to me is now practically beyond doubt. In this sense he is a gatekeeper but I personally don't think its intentional. There are many people whose work and achievements I respect who don't quite see the whole picture, people like Jon Stewart and Naomi Klein and in the UK Mark Thomas. As I mentioned above, although it may seem so, this is not a defence of George Monbiot. It is simply articulating aspects about him which make him a rather more complex figure than he might first seem. I would do the same for Alex Jones for readers of Monbiot's work who to them would unfairly appear as a gun-toting crazy conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in science (not my opinion- notice the word unfairly). I just think there is much more common ground here than there is division. We shouldn't ignore our differences at all, they should be discussed and I have definite opinions, but we shouldnt fixate on them to the exclusion of what we agree on.
So what do you think of Monbiot? There are many who think like him and they aren't stupid or evil, just don't see the world the way we do. If you want to comment I ask, please at least read through what I've written.