You're all wrong - George Monbiot, of MI6, says so

Breaking news - 9/11, 7/7, False Flag terrorism, Psyops against ordinary people/political classes and War on Freedom by Private Military companies and the mainstream media - current affairs.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:34 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by rodin »

Monbiot after years of good work
has joined the sneering elite.
No.

Monbiot has not switched sides.

The great thing is, these shills, sleepers, traitors in our midst are FORCED to come out in support of the government on 911, no matter what ingratiating (to the 'left' usually) claptrap they have previously espoused.

It's an ill wind...
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
ianrcrane
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Devon
Contact:

Post by ianrcrane »

Since the publication of George Monbiot's article in Tuesday's edition of The Guardian, there have been 1000+ responses posted on the Guardian comments page: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 31,00.html

Those representing the 9/11 Truth Community have maintained an appropriate level of decorum against much provocation! Many apparently neutral contributors have commented at the difference between civil approach adopted by the Truthers, versus the persistent vitriol and ad hominem attacks dished out by defenders of the OCT. Thanks to Dr. Hemp, Justin, Spiv, Alkmyst, Numeral, Mark Gobell, Ian Henshall and a host of others, for your efforts in presenting the case for 9/11 Truth with such educated & informed aplomb.

I think I'm going to call it a day now, so the following will probably be my last post on this particular Guardian thread:
Greg Norton:
"And my wager still stands -- 100/1 in your favour, I say no concrete proof of this so-called conspiracy will emerge in the next 20 years. Not a jot."

Rather unfair odds ... against yourself! A discerning review of the posts on this thread, assuming a modicum of objevtivity, would reveal that the evidence is already in plain site ... for those that have the eyes to see!

To ignore the plethora of evidence negating the OCT might be described by some as a symptom of severe cognitive dissonance. However, I would be more charitable and simply acknowledge that those maintaining an existential commitment to the OCT are products of an education system, intent on shutting down the development of independent thought.

The exponential growth of the 9/11 Truth Campaign and even the publication of George Monbiot's essay in the mainstream media, are indicators that this issue is taking a very real hold in the wider consciousness.

How long can the National Media continue to ignore the growing interest in William Rodriguez' UK tour? Local Radio Stations(incl. BBC), local & regional newspapers are clamouring for interviews with him. If there were truly a 'free' press in the UK, it would be reasonable to assume that Rodriguez' presence and his message would at least be reported upon; regardless of the implications and/or potential ramifications.

It is not a case of 'if' the falsehoods of 9/11 become accepted wisdom, it is 'when' ... and that might just be sooner than you think!

Ian R. Crane
Chair - 9/11 Truth Campaign(GB & Ireland)
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Post by paul wright »

Yes perhaps George did have a Devil's Advocate agenda in getting such a badly researched and poorly presented article such as might get under the editorial censor
Though his articles mostly back up the Rockefeller agenda they are usually well researched and introduce titbits of knowledge not too well known
He usually reserves his vitriol for the powerful
And he's jerked innumerable fans of his to look at Loose Change as well as riling a considerable percentage of the Guardian readership
Well done George, conscious or not
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 1960
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:29 am
Location: South London

Post by xmasdale »

scubadiver wrote:Comment near to the bottom of the page. This person sides with the movement but remains quite objective and balanced:
ps: Having followed some of what Moby's written over the past few years, I'd like to think this hit piece is actually a cunningly subversive attempt to stimulate debate without committing professional suicide by (gasp!) admitting that there may be some very startling realities swilling around at the bottom of the Truth Movement's big barrel of wild claims.

What did it for me was the last para - Moby's claim that the 'only possible explanation' for why the US Government doesn't go around capping everyone who accuses them of complicity is that these claims are pure fantasy: which is the sort of facile nonsense that I wouldn't expect him to be capable of. Ergo, he's having us all on. And it's worked, too. Sort of. Smart chap, eh?
My heart sank at the publication of Monbiot's article. Keith Mothersson and I had met him at the G8 alternative summit gathering near Gleneagles in July 2005 and chatted briefly with him about 9/11. At that time he seemed open-minded about the topic, so I felt surprise and disappointment at the content of his article.

But the public response to it has been heartwarming. I have written to thank Elias Davidsson for his excellent letter in the Guardian. I think George Monbiot has done us a favour, whether intentionally: I wouldn't like to speculate.

I agree with Snowy Grouch's:

"Dont be too hard on Mobiot; I suspect he's been fed some 'rotten fish' if you know what I mean."

Yes, I am sure there is a dirty tricks programme being carried out against this campaign. Various of our opponents have claimed they have been sent abusive e-mails and even death threats from us. The powers of darkness may well be sending them death threats purporting to come from us, in order to set them up against us.

Also we know that some of our staunch supporters are capable of saying and writing counterproductive things: anti-semitic, Islamophobic, fascistic etc. I have just been shown a nasty angry letter someone has sent to George Monbiot, which in my view will be counterproductive. But in a loose network such as ours it is inevitable that some people will write ill-judged things.

Despite that, we are making steady progress and correspondence in the Guardian is a break-through.

Well done all who have contributed to achieving this.

Noel
User avatar
alkmyst
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: UK

Monbiot Thread

Post by alkmyst »

Posted on Monbiot Guardian thread:
What is necessary to awaken a sleeping man? A good shock is necessary. But when a man is fast asleep one shock is not enough. A long period of continual shocks is needed. Consequently, there must be somebody to administer these shocks.

There is also the possibility of being awakened by an alarm clock. But the trouble is that one gets accustomed to the alarm clock far too quickly, he ceases to hear it. Many alarm clocks are necessary and always new ones. Otherwise a man must surround himself with alarm clocks to prevent him sleeping. But here there are certain difficulties. Alarm clocks must be wound up, in order to wind them up one must remember about them; in order to remember one must wake up often. But what is still worse, a man gets used to all alarm clocks and after a certain time he actually sleeps better because of them.

Therefore alarm clocks must be constantly changed, new ones must be continually invented. In the course of time this may help a man to awaken. But there is very little chance of a man doing all the winding up, inventing, and changing clocks all by himself, without outside help.

Therefore, in order to awaken, a combination of effort is required. To obtain results a certain number of people must work together.

One man alone can do nothing.

G.I. Gurdjieff

Need I say more?


Al K Myst
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

George Monbiot now as much as talking about voting for his father's Tory party?!?!
Has he done a Nick Cohen?


Image
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05 ... fight-for/
Nothing Left to Fight For
The most rightwing government Britain has had since the Second World War does not deserve to be re-elected.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th May 2008.
You can hear the wringing of hands and tearing of cloth all the way down Farringdon Road. Dismayed by the results of the local elections, convinced that Labour will be crushed in the byelection on Thursday, afraid that this will presage disaster in the next general election, my fellow columnists are predicting the end of the civilised world. But I can’t understand why we should care.
Yes, I worry about what the Tories might do when they get in. I also worry about what Labour might do if it wins another term. Why should anyone on the left seek the re-election of the most rightwing government Britain has had since the second world war?
New Labour’s apologists keep reminding us of the redistributive policies it has introduced: Sure Start children’s centres, reductions in child poverty, raising the school leaving age, the national minimum wage, flexible hours for parents and carers, better conditions for part-time workers, the Decent Homes programme, free museums, more foreign aid. All these are real achievements and deserve to be celebrated. But the catalogue of failures, backsliding and outright destruction is much longer and more consequential.
One fact alone should disqualify this government from office: we have a cabinet of war criminals. The Nuremberg Tribunal characterised a war of aggression as “the supreme international crime.” It is not just that Britain’s Labour government launched and has sustained an unprovoked war, it also sabotaged all means of achieving a peaceful resolution. In April 2002 it helped the Bush administration to sack Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in order to prevent him from settling the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. In two separate offers before the invasion began, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates..................
scienceplease
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:11 pm

Post by scienceplease »

In two separate offers before the invasion began, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates
Can this be verified? Sounds like political dynamite to me.
Jack
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:03 pm

Post by Jack »

well there was this:

"Saddam Offered Exile, But Neo–Cons Unleashed Carnage Anyway"

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/jackmorgan/e ... red_exile/
User avatar
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:08 am
Location: UK

Post by ian neal »

scienceplease wrote:
In two separate offers before the invasion began, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates
Can this be verified? Sounds like political dynamite to me.
Sept 16 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meas ... un.letter/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2262666.stm
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... s%22&meta=

Nov 13 2002

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... s%22&meta=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 465463.stm

Chronology
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31671.pdf
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

George Monbiot sure is an interesting guy - in some ways unfathomable - what he is doing here is truly brilliant!

So good the censors removed it from Bristol Indymedia website
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688386

George Monbiot plans to arrest John Bolton
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399562.html

The arrest is happening at about 7.30 after Bolton's talk here at CafeDirect Cafe, The Drill Hall, 25 Lion Street, Hay-on-Wye, HR3 5AD
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=HR3+5AD
User avatar
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:13 am
Location: london
Contact:

Post by karlos »

Personally i think this is a PR stunt.
Nobody is the least bit interested in buying Bolton's book anyway. Monboit is working for a pro war pro Labour spinsheet so it is Brown and Blair and others close to home he should be aiming for.
I bet Monboit does not show up but some anti war people might which might help to publicise the book.
Monboit is probably doing John Bolton a favour.

You can guess i am not nor ever have been a Monboit fan.

Anyway George Bush is coming to London very soon he is the real one to arrest and send to the Hague.
Image
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:41 pm

Post by Mark Gobell »

karlos wrote:Anyway George Bush is coming to London very soon he is the real one to arrest and send to the Hague.
15th June 2008

Stand by your beds. . .
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

More interesting material on George Monbiot - fascinating

Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... f-big-oil/
.....The other day, following our debate, Monbiot gloated that debating me was like “shooting rats in a bucket.” Is that so? Well I’d say that trying to argue with someone who plays as fast and loose with the truth as George Monbiot is like trying to wrestle an electric eel smeared with KY jelly.
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

'Useful idiots who undermine dissent on Syria':
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017- ... -on-syria/

'....A good example of this kind of wilful misrepresentation is by Brian Whitaker, the Guardian’s former Middle East editor. In a recent blog post, he has accused me and Media Lens, among others, of being “loyal supporters of Hersh” – and by insinuation, of Syrian leader Bashar Assad – of being “sarin denialists”, and of demonstrating blatant hypocrisy in approving Hersh’s use of anonymous sources when we oppose reliance on such sources by other journalists.

Before I address these criticisms, let’s briefly recap on what Hersh’s investigation found.

His sources in the US intelligence establishment have countered an official narrative – spread by western governments and the corporate media – that assumes Assad was behind a chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. Hersh’s account suggests that Syria used a conventional bomb to hit a jihadist meeting in the town, triggering secondary explosions in a storage depot containing pesticides, fertilisers and chlorine-based decontaminants. A toxic cloud was created that caused symptoms similar to sarin for those nearby.

Trump was so convinced that Assad had used sarin in Khan Sheikhoun that he violated international law and fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase as punishment, even though, according to Hersh, his own intelligence community disputed that this is what had happened. Given that Vladimir Putin is closely allied with Assad, the move had the potential to drag Russia into a dangerous confrontation with the US.

Loyal only to fair debate
So let me address Whitaker’s allegations.

1. Neither I nor Media Lens are “loyal supporters” of Hersh – or Assad. Whitaker is projecting. He has chosen a side in Syria – that of what he simplistically terms the “rebels”, now dominated by Al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, backed by an unholy alliance of Saudi Arabia, the US, Europe, Israel and Turkey. But not everyone who opposes the Islamic extremists, or Whitaker’s group of western interventionists, has therefore chosen Assad’s side.

One can choose the side of international law and respect for the sovereignty of nation-states, and object to states fomenting proxy wars to destabilise and destroy other regimes.

More than that, one can choose to maintain a critical distance and, based on experience, remain extremely wary of official and self-serving narratives promoted by the world’s most powerful states. Some of us think there are lessons to be learnt from the lies we were told about WMD in Iraq, or a supposedly imminent massacre by Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in Benghazi.

These examples of deception should be remembered when we try to assess how probable is the story that Assad wanted to invite yet more destructive interference in his country from foreign powers by gassing his own people – and to no obvious strategic or military advantage. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times, I should just admit I am a gullible fool.

I and Media Lens (if I may presume to speak on their behalf as a longtime follower) are not arguing that Hersh’s account must be right. Just that it deserves attention, and that it should be part of the media / public discourse. What concerns us is the inadmissibility of relevant information to the public realm, and concerted efforts to stifle debate. Manufactured groupthink, it has been repeatedly shown, works to the benefit of the powerful, those promoting the destructive interests of a now-global military-industrial complex......'

'....Like Whitaker, George Monbiot, also of the Guardian, has been policing debates about Syria in an attempt to intimidate and silence anyone who questions the official narrative.

Today, on Twitter, he accused me, Media Lens and Prof Ted Postol of “whitewashing mass murder”. Why? Presumably in my case, because I have tried to publicise credible alternative narratives, like the one above, that have been blacked out by the corporate media, and because, in keeping with my views on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, I have highlighted Syria as a prominent test case of whether the corporate media is willing to give a platform to such counter-narratives.....'

The whole article is well worth reading.
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Shilling for Israel again
and here for the EU
Lake District becoming UNESCO world heritage site DESPITE George Monbiot's best efforts
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqA2oC-oWo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqA2oC-oWo
User avatar
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Contact:

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Whole load of info about George Monbiot and his father Raymond who remains a top figure in the Tory party establishment


Who is George Monbiot ?
http://monbiot.scrapthetrade.com/history.xhtml

Personal history

This page is to establish that Monbiot comes from an extremely privilged background and is a member of an extreme right wing, Conservative Party family at the very heart of the British establishment. That is why he has a public profile as a Guardian journalist . The old school tie. Fighting the class war from the top down, not the bottom up. There is no personal animosity in the following, just an attempt to understand the source of Monbiot's extremely negative world view.


Like many of the leaders of the Green movement, Monbiot is descended from aristocracy.

His own ancestors lost their land over 200 years ago. Descended from the French Ducs de Coutard, they fled their estates outside Tours in the Loire Valley in 1789, when the local peasants, stirred by news of Revolution in Paris, began redistributing fields and occupying chateaux. The family slipped across to England and changed their name from Beaumont to Monbiot to evade revolutionary spies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 46850.html


Conservative Party family
Raymond Monbiot, George's father, is a businessman and heads the Conservative Party's trade and industry forum. He was Michael Heseltine's constituency chairman until they fell out over his leadership challenge to Margaret Thatcher. Rosalie Monbiot, George's mother, Tory leader of South Oxford district council for nine years, now serves on various local quangos and committees.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 18791.html

Monbiot attended Stowe Public School
Annual full boarding fees: £29,895
http://www.isbi.com/viewschool.asp?scho ... owe_School



Good at work, bad at sport, with heterodox opinions and a crippling stammer, I would have been bullied at any school, but at boarding school the bullying was remorseless and inescapable. Sometimes it lasted through much of the night. To have “sneaked” would only have made it worse, so from the age of eight I was thrown upon my own puny resources. It is hard to believe that the teachers didn’t know what was happening: perhaps they thought it was “character building”.

Less visible, but just as prevalent, was sexual abuse: new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.

http://www.monbiot.com/1998/03/26/acceptable-cruelty/


Oxford

I had an unhappy time at university, and I now regret having gone to Oxford, even though the zoology course I took was excellent. The culture did not suit me, and when I tried to join in I fell flat on my face, sometimes in a drunken stupor.

http://www.monbiot.com/about/



On May morning, I was distressed to see that the police had erected metal barriers along the parapet of Magdalen Bridge. Since time immemorial, Oxford students have demonstrated the principles of natural selection by jumping off the bridge and impaling themselves on old shopping trolleys. Now that this tradition has been brought to an end, it surely behoves the police to find some other means by which Nature might be permitted to run her course.
http://www.monbiot.com/2003/06/27/diary/



Monbiot's father


The father of George Monbiot, Britain's leading anti-globalisation campaigner, is Sir Raymond Monbiot CBE, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party and an executive who made the family's fortune working for Campbell's global canned-soup empire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006 ... servatives


Raymond Monbiot, former vice chair of the Conservative Party was behind rule changes to exclude members from voting for the leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4220346.stm



In the final days of IDS, Peter Oborne pointed out Ray has wider responsibilities than drawing up reform plans:

'It should be borne in mind that Monbiot is one of the men in grey suits whose heavy duty might be to hand the party leader a bottle of whisky and a revolver in certain circumstances.'

http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.co.uk/ ... chive.html


George Monbiot speaking at the Conservative party conference 2006 while his father was deputy leader:video

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,1887360,00.html




Sir Crispin Tickell (mentor)

Sir Crispin (Tickell) was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell


Sir Crispin Tickell, member of the eugenics Huxley clan.

He is also a patron of population concern charity Population Matters, (formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust), and told Radio 4's Today programme that the ideal population for Britain could be around 20 million. As a member of Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force, Tickell counselled against spreading cities saying that we need denser living, that young adults should not expect to leave home straight away, and that older relatives could live in 'granny flats'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Ti ... lic_Impact


“This book is rightly attracting attention, and raises issues that have long been neglected or deliberately buried … It should make people think; and as the author well says, if we do not like his ideas, then think of better ones. He believes that leaving things as they are is not a serious option. He makes his case.” Sir Crispin Tickell, Financial Times

http://www.monbiot.com/books/the-age-of-consent/


ecofascism
http://ecofascism.com/

Environmentalism is fascism
http://ecofascism.com/

Ecofascism Revisited
http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2012/02/0 ... revisited/
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Contact:

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Whole load of info about George Monbiot and his father Raymond who remains a top figure in the Tory party establishment


Who is George Monbiot ?
http://monbiot.scrapthetrade.com/history.xhtml

Personal history

This page is to establish that Monbiot comes from an extremely privilged background and is a member of an extreme right wing, Conservative Party family at the very heart of the British establishment. That is why he has a public profile as a Guardian journalist . The old school tie. Fighting the class war from the top down, not the bottom up. There is no personal animosity in the following, just an attempt to understand the source of Monbiot's extremely negative world view.


Like many of the leaders of the Green movement, Monbiot is descended from aristocracy.

His own ancestors lost their land over 200 years ago. Descended from the French Ducs de Coutard, they fled their estates outside Tours in the Loire Valley in 1789, when the local peasants, stirred by news of Revolution in Paris, began redistributing fields and occupying chateaux. The family slipped across to England and changed their name from Beaumont to Monbiot to evade revolutionary spies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 46850.html


Conservative Party family
Raymond Monbiot, George's father, is a businessman and heads the Conservative Party's trade and industry forum. He was Michael Heseltine's constituency chairman until they fell out over his leadership challenge to Margaret Thatcher. Rosalie Monbiot, George's mother, Tory leader of South Oxford district council for nine years, now serves on various local quangos and committees.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 18791.html

Monbiot attended Stowe Public School
Annual full boarding fees: £29,895
http://www.isbi.com/viewschool.asp?scho ... owe_School



Good at work, bad at sport, with heterodox opinions and a crippling stammer, I would have been bullied at any school, but at boarding school the bullying was remorseless and inescapable. Sometimes it lasted through much of the night. To have “sneaked” would only have made it worse, so from the age of eight I was thrown upon my own puny resources. It is hard to believe that the teachers didn’t know what was happening: perhaps they thought it was “character building”.

Less visible, but just as prevalent, was sexual abuse: new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.

http://www.monbiot.com/1998/03/26/acceptable-cruelty/


Oxford

I had an unhappy time at university, and I now regret having gone to Oxford, even though the zoology course I took was excellent. The culture did not suit me, and when I tried to join in I fell flat on my face, sometimes in a drunken stupor.

http://www.monbiot.com/about/



On May morning, I was distressed to see that the police had erected metal barriers along the parapet of Magdalen Bridge. Since time immemorial, Oxford students have demonstrated the principles of natural selection by jumping off the bridge and impaling themselves on old shopping trolleys. Now that this tradition has been brought to an end, it surely behoves the police to find some other means by which Nature might be permitted to run her course.
http://www.monbiot.com/2003/06/27/diary/



Monbiot's father


The father of George Monbiot, Britain's leading anti-globalisation campaigner, is Sir Raymond Monbiot CBE, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party and an executive who made the family's fortune working for Campbell's global canned-soup empire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006 ... servatives


Raymond Monbiot, former vice chair of the Conservative Party was behind rule changes to exclude members from voting for the leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4220346.stm



In the final days of IDS, Peter Oborne pointed out Ray has wider responsibilities than drawing up reform plans:

'It should be borne in mind that Monbiot is one of the men in grey suits whose heavy duty might be to hand the party leader a bottle of whisky and a revolver in certain circumstances.'

http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.co.uk/ ... chive.html


George Monbiot speaking at the Conservative party conference 2006 while his father was deputy leader:video

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,1887360,00.html




Sir Crispin Tickell (mentor)

Sir Crispin (Tickell) was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell


Sir Crispin Tickell, member of the eugenics Huxley clan.

He is also a patron of population concern charity Population Matters, (formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust), and told Radio 4's Today programme that the ideal population for Britain could be around 20 million. As a member of Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force, Tickell counselled against spreading cities saying that we need denser living, that young adults should not expect to leave home straight away, and that older relatives could live in 'granny flats'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Ti ... lic_Impact


“This book is rightly attracting attention, and raises issues that have long been neglected or deliberately buried … It should make people think; and as the author well says, if we do not like his ideas, then think of better ones. He believes that leaving things as they are is not a serious option. He makes his case.” Sir Crispin Tickell, Financial Times

http://www.monbiot.com/books/the-age-of-consent/


ecofascism
http://ecofascism.com/

Environmentalism is fascism
http://ecofascism.com/

Ecofascism Revisited
http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2012/02/0 ... revisited/
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Contact:

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

[html]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I know both Vanessa & George personally. Can't quite believe the way George chose to use his privilege as a Guardian columnist to smear you Vanessa. Mind you.. <a href="https://t.co/SadU855tVw">https://t.co/S ... <br>Really George? <a href="https://t.co/2Bzkcwrjcb">https://t.co/2Bzkcwrjcb</a> <a href="https://t.co/8ZVC68paN0">https://t.co/8ZVC68paN0</a></p>— Tony Gosling ✈ (@TonyGosling) <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyGosling/status/ ... ">December 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
[/html]
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6069
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: East London

Post by outsider »

'Monbiot is not only a hypocrite, but a bully too':
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018 ... hypocrite/

'...A true environmentalist has to look as critically at western policies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and many other areas of the globe as he does at UK policy in the Welsh hills and the Lake District.

All indications are that Monbiot lacks the experience, knowledge and skills to unravel the deceptions being perpetrated in the west’s proxy and not-so-proxy wars overseas. That is fair enough. What is not reasonable is that he should use his platforms to smear precisely those who can speak with a degree of authority and independence – and then conspire in denying them a platform to respond. That is the behaviour not only of a hypocrite, but of a bully too.'
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Re: the ' White Helmets' in Syria whose official name is the ' Syrian Civil Defense force' (having taken that name from the REAL Syria Civil Defence for whom you call 113 inside Syria) and their surreptitious agenda behind their role as a 'humanitarian support' entity (not officially recognised by the UN as a first-responder civil-defence organisation), read here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/08/01/j ... e-helmets/ http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/08/01/j ... e-helmets/
The White Helmets have only ever operated in areas where Islamist terror groups have operated within Syria. Extract: "It should come as no surprise then that, since their founding, the White Helmets have been instrumental in blaming the Syrian government for any and all subsequent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, acting as both witnesses and responders to events that were later proven https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/0 ... i-a07.html to be the work of the armed opposition in Syria or staged https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-expert-c ... 19428.html." A very salient fact so often mislaid in the stampede to produce lies, is that the only chemical factory in Aleppo (producing chlorine among other substances) was actually captured by the Al Nusra Front coalition in 2012 http://www.france24.com/en/20121208-syr ... -islamists. It is located about 10km east of Aleppo’s airport on the road towards Raqqa. [source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real- ... rs/5547528 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real- ... rs/5547528 ].

And for a comprehensive analysis, listen to the following - Tony's Bristol Community Radio Friday Drivetime Politics Show broadcast on 11th November 2016 featuring a recording of a talk by freelance journalist Vanessa Beeley, from 36 mins 44 secs onwards
http://www.radio4all.net/files/tony@cul ... 180002.mp3



Monbiot is not only a hypocrite, but a bully too
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018 ... hypocrite/
12 January 2018
It is time for George Monbiot’s legion of supporters to call him out. Not only is he a hypocrite, but he is becoming an increasingly dangerous one.

Turning a blind eye to his behaviour, or worse excusing it, as too often happens, has only encouraged him to intensify his attacks on dissident writers, those who – whether right or wrong on any specific issue – are slowly helping us all to develop more critical perspectives on western foreign policy goals than has ever been possible before.

I do not lightly use such strong language against Monbiot, someone I once admired. But his column this week drips with hypocrisy as he accuses the rightwing media of being the real villains when it comes to “no-platforming”. Monbiot writes:

But perhaps the real discomfort is that the worst no-platforming of all takes place within our newspapers. In the publications most obsessed with student silliness, there is no platform for socialism, no platform for environmentalism, no platform for those who might offend the interests of the proprietors. …

I believe that a healthy media organisation, like a healthy university, should admit a diversity of opinion. I want the other newspapers to keep publishing views with which I fiercely disagree. But they – and we – should also seek opposing views and publish them too, however uncomfortable this might be.
What free speech advocate would disagree with that. Except it is Monbiot himself who has been using his prominent platforms, at the Guardian and on social media, to discredit critical thinkers on the left – not with reasoned arguments, but by impugning their integrity.

Denied a platform
It started with his unsubstantiated claim that scholars like Noam Chomsky and the late Ed Herman, as well as the acclaimed journalist John Pilger, were “genocide deniers and belittlers”. It now focuses on childish insinuations that those who question the corporate media’s simplistic narrative on Syria are Assad apologists or in Vladimir Putin’s pay.

But worse than this, Monbiot is also conspiring – either actively or through his silence – to deny critics of his and the Guardian’s position on Syria the chance to set out their evidence in its pages.

The Guardian’s anti-democratic stance does not surprise me, as someone who worked there for many years. I found myself repeatedly no-platformed by the paper – even while on its staff – after I started taking an interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict and writing about the discomforting issue of what a Jewish state entails. My treatment is far from unique.

Now the paper is denying a platform to those who question simplistic and self-serving western narratives on Syria. And Monbiot is backing his employer to the hilt, even as he professes his commitment to the publication of views he fiercely disagrees with. That’s the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

‘Selfless’ White Helmets?
The latest instalment of the Guardian and Monbiot’s long-running battle to silence Syria dissidents arrived last month when Olivia Solon, the paper’s technology writer living in San Francisco, developed a sudden and unexpected expertise in a controversial Syrian group called the White Helmets.

In the western corporate media narrative, the White Helmets are a group of dedicated and selfless rescue workers. They are supposedly the humanitarians on whose behalf a western intervention in Syria would have been justified – before, that is, Syrian leader Bashar Assad queered their pitch by inviting in Russia.

However, there are problems with the White Helmets. They operate only in rebel – read: mainly al-Qaeda and ISIS-held – areas of Syria, and plenty of evidence shows that they are funded by the UK and US to advance both countries’ far-from-humanitarian policy objectives in Syria.

There are also strong indications that members of the White Helmets have been involved in war crimes, and that they have staged rescue operations as a part of a propaganda offensive designed to assist Islamic extremists trying to oust Assad. (Solon discounts this last claim. In doing so, she ignores several examples of such behaviour, concentrating instead on an improbable “mannequin challenge”, when the White Helmets supposedly froze their emergency operations, in the midst of rescue efforts, apparently as part of a peculiar publicity campaign.)

Guardian hatchet job
Whatever side one takes in this debate, one would imagine that Monbiot should have a clear agenda in support of hearing evidence from all sides. One might also imagine that he would want to distance himself from Solon’s efforts to tie criticism of the White Helmets to a supposed “fake news” crisis and paint those critical of the group as Putin-bots. According to Solon:

The way the Russian propaganda machine has targeted the White Helmets is a neat case study in the prevailing information wars. It exposes just how rumours, conspiracy theories and half-truths bubble to the top of YouTube, Google and Twitter search algorithms.
Those are the same algorithms that have been changed in recent months to make sure that prominent leftist websites are increasingly difficult to find on internet searches and their writers’ views effectively disappeared.

Yet Monbiot has been using social media to promote Solon’s cheerleading of the White Helmets and her hatchet job against on-the-ground journalists who have taken a far more critical view of the group.

As set out by Prof Tim Hayward, the Guardian’s response to criticism of Solon’s piece has been typical. The comments section below the article was hastily closed after many criticisms were voiced by readers. The journalists who were singled out for attack by Solon were denied a right of reply. A group of concerned academics led by Hayward who submitted their own article, which detailed publicly available evidence to counter Solon’s simplistic account of the White Helmets, were ignored. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s editors and the reader’s editor have ignored all efforts by these parties to contact them.

Given his claim to be an uncompromising defender of free speech and a fierce advocate of providing platforms to those who can back up their arguments with evidence, however discomforting, one might have assumed that Monbiot would at the very least have lobbied on behalf of Hayward and his fellow scholars. But not a bit of it. Yet again he has joined the dogs of the corporate media baying for blood. Instead he turned to Twitter to claim Hayward and Piers Robinson, an expert on propaganda, had “disgraced” themselves.

Undermining climate concerns
The many tens of thousands of leftists who defend Monbiot, or turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy, largely do so because of his record on the environment. But in practice they are enabling not only his increasingly overt incitement against critical thinkers, but also undermining the very cause his supporters believe he champions.

Climate breakdown is a global concern. Rewilding, bike-riding, protecting bees and polar bears, and developing new sustainable technologies are all vitally important. But such actions will amount to little if we fail to turn a highly sceptical eye on the activities of a western military-industrial complex ravaging the planet’s poorest regions.

These war industries fill their coffers by using weapons indiscriminately on “enemy” populations, spawning new and fiercer enemies – while often propping them up too – to generate endless wars. The consequences include massive displacements of these populations who then destabilise other regions, spreading the effect and creating new opportunities for the arms manufacturers, homeland security industries, and the financial industries that feed off them.

A true environmentalist has to look as critically at western policies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and many other areas of the globe as he does at UK policy in the Welsh hills and the Lake District.

All indications are that Monbiot lacks the experience, knowledge and skills to unravel the deceptions being perpetrated in the west’s proxy and not-so-proxy wars overseas. That is fair enough. What is not reasonable is that he should use his platforms to smear precisely those who can speak with a degree of authority and independence – and then conspire in denying them a platform to respond. That is the behaviour not only of a hypocrite, but of a bully too.
User avatar
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.
Contact:

Post by Whitehall_Bin_Men »

Codswallop. Monbiot is gaming democracy.

Jeremy Corbyn lost because he failed to convince his party that leaving the European Union was both a vote-winner and a good idea.

Corbyn was also smeared as an antisemite daily while Jewish journalists like George played along, accusing Corbyn of being a racist. Supporting Labour but distancing himself from Jeremy Corbyn....

Why Labour Lost: Oligarchs are Gaming Democracy 💰🗳 | George Monbiot
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I_ZhGHxnHQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I_ZhGHxnHQ
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

George Monbiot’s Excuses for Not Speaking Out Loudly in Defence of Assange Simply Won’t Wash
By Jonathan Cook
https://www.globalresearch.ca/george-mo ... sh/5725972


Faced with a barrage of criticism from some of his followers, George Monbiot, the Guardian’s supposedly fearless, leftwing columnist, offered up two extraordinarily feeble excuses this week for failing to provide more than cursory support for Julian Assange over the past month, as the Wikileaks founder has endured extradition hearings in a London courtroom.

The Trump administration wants Assange brought to the United States to face espionage charges that could see him locked away in a super-max prison on “special administrative measures”, unable to have meaningful contact with any other human being for the rest of his life. And that fate awaits him only because he embarrassed the US by exposing its war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq in the pages of newspapers like the New York Times and Guardian – and because Washington fears that Assange, if left free, would publish more disturbing truths about US actions around the globe.

But there is much more at stake than simply Assange’s rights being trampled on. He is not simply the western equivalent of Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and dissident who notably offered his own support to Assange during the hearings. Weiwei covered his mouth outside the Old Bailey courtroom in protest at the media’s blanket silence over the crimes being perpetrated against Assange.


Assange faces a terrifying new kind of extraordinary rendition – one conducted not covertly by US security services but in the full glare of publicity and, if the London court approves, with the consent of the British judiciary. If extradition is authorised, a precedent will be set that allows the US to seize and jail any journalist who exposes its crimes. Inevitably, that will have a severe chilling effect on all journalists investigating the world’s only super-power. It will not only be the death of journalism’s already enfeebled role as a watchdog on power but a death blow against our societies’ commitment to the principles of freedom and openness.

The barest minimum

This should be reason enough for anyone to be deeply concerned about Assange’s extradition hearing, most especially journalists. And even more so a journalist like Monbiot, whose work’s lifeblood is the investigation of unaccountable power and its corrosive effects. If any British journalist ought to be shouting from the rooftops against Assange’s extradition, it is Monbiot.

And yet, he has failed to write a single column in the Guardian on Assange, and in response to mounting criticism from followers pointed to three retweets backing Assange during the past four weeks of extradition hearings. All three, we should note, were of articles published in his own newspaper, the Guardian, that broke with its hostile coverage and could be considered vaguely sympathetic to Assange.


This was the barest minimum that Monbiot could afford to be seen doing. After all, positioned as the Guardian’s leftwing conscience, it would have been strange indeed had he not retweeted the rare instances, in a sea of Guardian articles ridiculing and vilifying Assange, of the paper making a nod to its more leftwing readers.

But notably, Monbiot failed to retweet any of the daily articles posted by former UK ambassador Craig Murray that detailed the horrifying abuses of legal process against Assange during the extradition hearings as well as evidence from expert witness after expert witness that demolished the central claims of the US case. Monbiot did not retweet any of the articles or comments by the renowned investigative journalist John Pilger, who has been a stalwart defender of Assange.


He did not retweet the testimony of Noam Chomsky, the celebrated linguist and political analyst, that the US charges against Assange are entirely political in nature and therefore void the US extradition request. Monbiot has similarly ignored the comments of Nils Melzer, the United Nations’ expert on torture, that Assange is already being psychologically tortured by the combined actions of the UK and US to keep him locked up in extreme isolation and in a prolonged state of chronic fear for his future.

Monbiot also did not retweet the astounding evidence last week from a former employee of the Spanish company that provided security at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange spent seven years in political asylum. The whistleblower testified that under CIA direction the company broke the law by surveilling Assange, even in the toilet block, and listened in to his privileged conversations with his lawyers. This fact alone should have been enough to force the presiding judge, Vanessa Baraitser, to rule against the US extradition request.


Cowardly excuses

No, Monbiot told his followers about none of these developments or about much more that has emerged over the past four weeks. Instead he offered two cowardly excuses for why he has remained so mealymouthed at the worst assault on press freedom in living memory.

The first was that the Assange extradition hearing apparently isn’t important enough. It is simply “one of hundreds of crucial issues” and “compared to say, soil loss, it’s way down my list”.



No one can doubt that Monbiot rightly takes environmental issues extremely seriously. But he doesn’t just tweet and write about the environment. There are many others issues, entirely unconnected to the environment and of which he appears to know almost nothing, that he regularly writes about.

One will suffice as illustrative. For the past two years Monbiot has dedicated a great deal of time and energy – time and energy he has refused to expend on defending Assange and press freedom – to attack those who have questioned claims by the US and UK intelligence services that the Syrian government under Bashar Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. The supposed attack provided the pretext for the US to launch a bombing attack on Syria – an example of a supreme international crime, according to the Nuremberg principles.


Monbiot has tried to intimidate into silence those, including whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), who have suggested that in fact the evidence points to jihadist groups being responsible for what happened in Douma. Those jihadists – labelled “terrorists” by the western media in all countries other than Syria – have been explicitly financed by western allies like Saudi Arabia, and more covertly by the west itself. Nonetheless, Monbiot has smeared anyone sceptical of the official western narrative about Douma as an “Assad apologist”, including by implication the distinguished Middle East reporter Robert Fisk, who, unlike Monbiot, actually visited Douma.


Monbiot has no expertise on the Middle East, and presumably has drawn his conclusions from reading the Syria coverage of the Guardian, whose positions he precisely echoes. It is bad enough that he has used his platform to go on the offensive against those taking a critical position on the events in Douma. But worse still, he has swept up in his smear campaign whistleblowers from the OPCW, the United Nations’ chemical weapons watchdog body, who have been warning that the OPCW is no longer independent but has become a deeply politicised body that tampered with the inspectors’ findings in the Douma case to bolster Washington’s self-serving agenda in Syria.


The whistleblowers’ claims are hardly out of line with the wider picture of the OPCW. The organisation has been falling under Washington’s thumb for nearly two decades. The previous head of the OPCW, Jose Bustani, was forced out by the Bush administration after he sought to negotiate further weapons inspections of Iraq to deprive the US of a pretext to launch its illegal invasion in 2003. Angry that US plans for regime change might be disrupted, John Bolton, the warmongering US ambassador to the UN, even threatened Bustani: “We know where your kids live.”

At least three members of the OPCW team that investigated the Douma events have tried to warn that the evidence blaming Assad was doctored by the organisation’s officials and that their own research showed that the most likely culprit were jihadist groups – who presumably hoped to engineer a pretext for more direct western intervention in Syria to help them bring down the Syrian government.

Misinformation around the Douma events has grown so dire that Bustani himself recently tried to intervene on behalf of the whistleblowers at the Security Council. He noted in testimony blocked by the US and UK: “At great risk to themselves, they [the whistleblowers] have dared to speak out against possible irregular behaviour in your Organisation [the OPCW].” He added: “Hearing what your own inspectors have to say would be an important first step in mending the Organisation’s damaged reputation.”


Absurd argument

There are plenty of reasons, therefore, to criticise Monbiot for his smearing of the Douma sceptics and the OPCW whistleblowers. But I am not interested here in revisiting the Douma episode. The point I am making relates to Assange.

In asserting that he doesn’t have time to defend Assange, Monbiot is implicitly arguing that opposing the current all-out war by the US on journalism is a lower priority than his smearing of the OPCW whistleblowers; that bullying and silencing Douma sceptics is one of those “hundreds of crucial issues” more important than preventing Assange from spending the rest of his life in jail, and more important than saving investigative journalism from this gravest of assaults by the US.

To understand how absurd Monbiot’s argument is, let us note that the only way we can ever properly settle the Douma case – without regurgitating claims by the US and UK intelligence services, as Monbiot has been doing – is if someone manages to leak the classified communications on Douma between the US administration and the OPCW leadership. That would let us know whether it is the OPCW whistleblowers telling the truth or the suits in head office. The whistleblowers have already stated that US officials turned up at an OPCW meeting unannounced and in violation of the body’s independent status in a bid to lean on staff.

The only way we will learn the truth with any certainty is if there is a leak of documents – to an organisation like Assange’s group Wikileaks.

The war on Assange has not only been a war on journalism. It is also a war on the whistleblowers who have assisted journalists and Wikileaks in arriving at the truth. Hanging on the outcome of Assange’s case is not only his personal fate, but journalism’s very ability to tap into sources close to the centres of power. In abandoning Assange, we abandon any hope of finding out the truth on a whole range of the most pressing issues facing us.

If Monbiot hopes to be able to campaign more effectively on “hundreds of crucial issues” like soil loss and other environmental concerns, he needs Assange and Wikileaks as vigorous as possible, not Assange locked away in a dark cell and Wikileaks a shadow of the organisation it once was.

Monbiot, of course, does not need me to tell him all this. He understands it already. Which is why his behaviour needs explaining – a matter we will get to in a minute.

All too ready to tick boxes

But before that, let us turn our attention to his second, extraordinary excuse for failing to raise his voice above a whisper on Assange’s plight.



Monbiot claims he cannot add anything “original” to what has been said already about the Assange case and that “It’s not about ticking boxes” but about “expanding the field”.

Let us set aside the obvious lacuna in this argument: that Monbiot has been ticking every box imaginable on the Douma incident. He added precisely nothing to the debate apart from his own smears of the whistleblowers. All he did was echo the intelligence services’ talking points, which had already been given an extensive and uncritical airing in the Guardian.

So Monbiot is quite clearly capable of being highly unoriginal when he chooses to be.

But there are, of course, lots of original things Monbiot could contribute to the coverage of the Assange case in his own newspaper, the Guardian, given that the only people speaking up for Assange – apart from one article by Patrick Cockburn in the Independent – have been outside the “mainstream”, without a platform in the corporate media.


Monbiot could have served as a counterweight to the relentless maligning of Assange in the Guardian’s pages by pointing out how these smears were unfounded. Instead he has either echoed those smears, or equivocated on them, or remained silent. He could have, for example, observed that there were very good grounds for Assange to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, as the extradition hearings have confirmed, in contrast to the constant claims in the Guardian that Assange was “fleeing rape charges” – charges that existed only in the imagination of newspaper editors – or that he was paranoid and arrogant.


Or Monbiot could have pointed out that the Guardian fabricated an easily disproved smear story that a Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and unnamed “Russians” had supposedly visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in secret three times – without leaving any evidence, even though the embassy was the most heavily surveilled building in London, both inside and out.

The story, presumably provided to the Guardian on an unattributable basis by one of the security services involved, was published to ensnare Assange in evidence-free Russiagate claims and thereby alienate liberals so that they would not oppose the US extradition case. Monbiot could have added that the Guardian was wrong not to apologise for the deceitful, malicious report and retract it.


Or Monbiot could tell his readers that the Guardian is not declaring a glaring conflict of interest in its coverage of the Assange hearings. Rather than being a neutral observer of developments, the paper is in fact deeply implicated in the very charges levelled by the US against Assange. Its former investigations editor David Leigh was the one who recklessly published the password to a critically important trove of secret documents held by Wikileaks, giving every security service in the world access to them. Eventually, in a damage limitation operation, Wikileaks was forced to publish the files unredacted to let anyone named know they were in danger.

If anyone should be on trial for endangering US informants – no one should be, and no informants were harmed – it is not Assange but Leigh and other senior Guardian editors.


All of these would be highly “original” things for Monbiot to write about that would undoubtedly “expand the field”. But I am not really suggesting that he go so far as to be honest about the vile role played by his employer in selling out Assange. I am worldly enough to know how things work. He has a good, mainstream platform that weekly publishes his articles – and he does not want to jeopardise that by criticising his own newspaper.

But of course Monbiot does not need to criticise the Guardian to support Assange. There are plenty of other, important things to write about if he chooses to. The point is he chooses not to. The real question, once his pathetic excuses are stripped away, is why.

Mopped up by the Guardian

And that, sadly, is because Monbiot is not the free thinker, the fearless investigator of difficult truths, the leftwing conscience he claims to be. It is not really his fault. It is in the nature of the function he serves at the Guardian – and with which I am only too familiar myself from my years working there.

The Guardian is the main outlet of the Guardian Media Group, which depends on advertising to survive. It is a corporate venture premised on exploiting the Guardian’s market share to the greatest extent possible, just as the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Times do with their own markets. In this regard, newspapers are no different from supermarkets. If they fail to corner their section of the market, another corporation better suited to do so will step in and seize it from them.

Assange understood this only too well, as he explained in an interview back in 2011 after learning that the Guardian had been breaking its agreements with Wikileaks and sharing confidential files with others. He observed:

“What drives a paper like the Guardian or New York Times is not their inner moral values. It is simply that they have a market. In the UK, there is a market called ‘educated liberals’. Educated liberals want to buy a newspaper like the Guardian and therefore an institution arises to fulfil that market.”



Most of the Guardian’s writers pander squarely to the general “educated liberals” market. But some, like Monbiot, are there with a more specific purpose: to mop up sections of the population that might otherwise stray from the Guardian fold.

Owen Jones is there to mop up leftwing supporters of the Labour party to persuade them that the Guardian is their friend, as he continued to do even while the paper was helping to destroy the party’s elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Jonathan Freedland is there, in part, to reassure liberal Jews that the Guardian is on their side, which he did by playing up the evidence-free smears that Labour had an especial antisemitism problem under Corbyn. Hadley Freeman is there, as are others like Suzanne Moore, to represent liberal women deeply invested in identity politics and to make sure they keep them away from class politics.

The point is that the Guardian is a corporate endeavour that makes sure its columnists cover as many liberal-left bases as possible without allowing any really subversive voices a platform from which they can challenge or disrupt the neoliberal status quo.

Monbiot, therefore, treads the finest line of all the Guardian’s columnists. His position is the most absurd, the one plagued with the biggest internal contradiction: he must sell extreme environmental concern from within a newspaper that is entirely embedded in the economic logic of the very neoliberal system that is destroying the planet.

The Guardian understands its own urgent need to greenwash too. Its market, educated liberals, are increasingly frightened by the multiple environmental threats we face, which is why very belatedly – decades late, in fact – the paper has been prioritising this issue above all others.

But of course, given the logic of its corporate, money-making, advertiser-driven agenda, the Guardian is not just highlighting the threat to the environment to win over more educated liberals. It is also monetising this threat for itself as aggressively as it can. It did so again this week as its editor, Kath Viner, appealed to educated liberals to make a subscription donation to the paper based on the claim that it will campaign to protect the environment better than any other UK newspaper. That, of course, is a remarkably low bar it has set for itself.


Treading a fine line

Monbiot is trapped in this same logic: campaigning for the environment from within an organisation whose economic imperatives are designed to trash the planet.

He treads this very fine line by deviating as little as necessary from the Guardian’s own narrow, status quo-hugging agenda. He enjoys the freedom to speak out loudly on the dangers of environmental destruction, but that freedom comes at a price – that he closely adhere to the technocratic, liberal consensus on other issues. The paradox is that on foreign policy matters we have Monbiot effectively colluding in the propaganda of the west’s war industries – the most polluting on the planet – as he professes his environmental credentials to the Guardian’s liberal readers.

This stance is not imposed on him. He does not receive orders from Guardian editors to smear OPCW whistleblowers or to restrain himself from tweeting forthright support for Assange. Instead he has imbibed the corporate culture of the Guardian – as I once did, as most of us do in our daily lives – as a sanity survival strategy, as way to placate the cognitive dissonance that would overwhelm him if he did not.

Paradoxically, the two excuses he offered justifying his lack of support for Assange followed a tweet in which he had just castigated the left – as he is wont to do when confronted with evidence he would rather not hear – for preferring conformity over solidarity.


I’m no psychologist, but this sounds suspiciously like projection to me. Monbiot was immediately and rightly pulled up by followers who pointed out that, in his abandonment of Assange, he had once again shown a high degree of conformity to official, intelligence agency-serving narratives, as well as to those of his employer, the Guardian. He had also shown a very low degree of solidarity with a man who has almost single-handedly taken on the western power establishment in the hope of helping us finally to hold it to account.

Ultimately, the problem lies not with Monbiot. He is just serving the market, attracting socially responsible liberals to the Guardian, rationalising the paper’s reformist agenda within a suicidal, global, neoliberal economy, and preventing leftwingers from straying too far, to the point where they might contemplate a more revolutionary form of politics.

The problem lies not with Monbiot. It lies with us. We continue to ignore the fact that we are being played by the system, that we are being placated by pale offerings like Monbiot, that our consent is needed and that we keep finding reasons to give it rather than withdraw it. Neither Monbiot nor the Guardian is going to liberate our minds. Only we can do that.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: You're all wrong - George Monbiot says so

Post by TonyGosling »

George Monbiot’s farming fantasies
The urban voyeur will never understand agriculture
BY John Lewis-Stempel
. Gassy George. Credit: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures/Getty

John Lewis-Stempel is a farmer and writer on nature and history. His most recent books are The Sheep's Tale and Nightwalking.
JLewisStempel
May 17, 2022

https://unherd.com/2022/05/george-monbi ... fantasies/

Ever since they rode out of the Book of Revelation circa 90AD, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have wreaked existential havoc. They may now finally be about to achieve the End Times. We are either going to starve to death, as the world population reaches 10 billion by 2050, or drown or scorch to death due to climate change soon thereafter.

The Devil has finally found the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It is not, as you might suspect, a hurtling asteroid or Putin pushing the thermo-nuclear button; it is, apparently, farming. It is, according to the environmentalist and journalist George Monbiot, “the most destructive force ever to have been unleashed by humans”. This ancient activity takes up vast tracts of the planet and the gases emitted by its cows and sheep take up its atmosphere.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email

Already registered? Sign in

Credit where it is due, Monbiot presents in his latest book Regenesis:“Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet” a damning case for farming being the Devil’s work. What the public understands as farming — carefully husbanded crops and moo moos attended to by a rosy-faced family — is increasingly absent from the landscape and confined to the board books the middle classes read to their toddlers. About 70% of global farmland is owned by 1% of “farmers”. Agri-business now rules the roost.

Four companies — Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus — control 90% of the global grain trade. Similarly, four companies — ChemChina, Corteva, Bayer and BASF — control 66% of the world’s agricultural chemicals. These businesses are hardly renowned for their care of the environment. Likewise, politicians. The post-Second World War intensification of agriculture, promoted in the West by national governments and the nascent EU as a path to food security, has starved the soil and exhausted crops.

The litany of the woes caused by agriculture continues. Pesticide use on farmland has resulted in what Monbiot calls “Insectageddon”: even an eco-minded country such as Denmark has witnessed a drop of 70-80% of insects in the last 20 years. No fewer than 75% of antibiotics sold in Europe are used for treating farm animals, and perhaps 58% of those antibiotics are excreted, with some reaching water courses. I learned to swim in the River Wye, in the self-same stretch near Hay where Monbiot today fears to tread water, due to pollutant run-off from 590 chicken units. Soya fed to housed cattle requires the cutting down of the Amazon rainforest. Then there is wasted water from the tap left running. And those methane belches.

We in the West live in a careless and consumerist Sodom and Gomorroh, and the remainder of the planet is following in a handcart. By what is known as “Bennett’s Law”, consumption of fat and protein (read: “meat”) rises with income. As hitherto starving parts of the globe gain more currency in the pocket so they will, like us decadent Westerners, tuck into burgers, spare-ribs, entrecote, all of which come from the same pesky, methane-producing, land-hogging livestock who are already the principal cause agents of The End Times. “The biggest population crisis is not the growth in human numbers, but the growth in livestock numbers”, Monbiot declares.
More from this author
George Monbiot's farming fantasies

By John Lewis-Stempel

It might come as a surprise to Saint George of The Guardian, but many of us in agriculture would concur with his jeremiad against Big Farmer. Indeed, my book The Running Hare, an account of sustainably retro-farming an arable field, anticipates many of his sallies against the agri-industrial dragon. Conventional, chemically-dependent agriculture is a bonfire of the sanities, ecological and economic, being dependent on big (but barely scrutinised) public subsidy.

Monbiot’s solution is a ‘‘farmfree” future, in which our farmland has been re-wilded with exotic megafauna — think lions, elephants, giraffes. What will we eat? Bacterial soup, grown in vats. Such gloop can, apparently, be modelled into tasty dishes. In an aural irony a comedian would blush to construct, Monbiot’s damascene conversion to this ascetic diet came in Helsinki.

But any discussion of global food policy needs to begin with one plain fact: there is, as Monbiot concedes, no actual food shortage. Already, the planet’s farmers produce enough food to cater for the projected 10 billion humans of 2050. The problem is waste, and distribution. The West goes to fat, while Ethiopia hungers; worldwide, more than 10% of people are hungry, roughly 25% are overweight or obese. The United Nations’ figures for global food waste are somewhat fluid, but 33% is in the ballpark. The rich West throws away food, while the Third World lacks the storage to keep food preserved. I’d be more amenable to laments about farming by every George, Dick and Henrietta if the public stopped binning food, and government did its job of equitable distribution.
Suggested article
Octopus farms are the future

By Ellen Pasternack

Not that my views as a farmer will interest Monbiot. He has seen the light, and I am to be made extinct. Or I will be turned into a tourist guide for his wildlife park — which, after all, is what the British countryside will become under “farmfree”. Lions are apex predators, and quite capable of eating a human for lunch, so they will need to be fenced in when the Serengeti comes to Surrey. What used to be working countryside becomes an extended zoo where Nature is exterior to humans. A visitor attraction for city folk.

To justify his “farmfree” future Monbiot, after reasonably critiquing conventional, intensive agriculture, then traduces alternative, nature-friendly, climate-aiding farming methods. No-till, regenerative, and organic are all set up as Aunt Sallies, to be “demolished” in the proof that no farming model is sustainable. Not one.

But take organic farming (and I declare an interest). According to Monbiot, organic farming only allows “a slightly wider range of wildlife to persist” than conventional farming, and can inflict more damage on the overall environment because of its “lower yields”: it uses more land to produce the same amount of food. But as the same George Monbiot noted, in 2000, in a Guardian article called “Organic farming will feed the world“, organic farming of maize produces yields “identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically improves”. He goes on to explain the research of Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University, which demonstrated “how farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic techniques”.
More from this author
Humans are born to hunt

By John Lewis-Stempel

And does organic land really possess only a “slightly wider range of wildlife”? According to an Oxford University study, organic farms support 34% more plant, insect and animal species than conventional farms. I’d say 34% was more than “slight”, wouldn’t you?

As the high priest of British veganism, Monbiot really has it in the neck for farm animals, who do not feature in his eerily Orwellian “farmfree” dystopia. Curious, is it not, how some eco activists claim to love animals, but are happy to see farm breeds — some of which, like White Park cattle, have been around since Druid times — made extinct? Is there some sort of hierarchy, where wild animals are good, farm animals bad? I aver that our Ouessant sheep, a Viking-era breed from Brittany, are no less fascinating than their wild Mouflon ancestors. And I have observed both.

Sheep — usually Monbiot’s bete noire, for their supposed “sheepwrecking” of the uplands of Wales — get off lightly in Regenesis, in which the pasture-fed, organic cow becomes the “most damaging farm product” on Earth. Why? Because they are slow to grow to maturity, thus taking up more space, and emitting more methane.

But the organic cow will produce, from its back end, enough manure to feed over 2 million insects a year, the start of a wild food chain going all the way up to the fox and swallow. More organic cows might, then, end “Insectageddon”. Moreover, traditional hay meadows — the precise origin and purpose of which is the feeding of livestock like Ermintrude — are one of the most florally diverse habitats in the world, and can contain over 140 plant species.
More from this author
Why we shouldn't eat lamb

By John Lewis-Stempel

Arguments like this will fall on stony ground with Monbiot and his largely urban following of rewilders, whose experience of agriculture is that of the voyeur, the observer. Monbiot has no appreciation of farmland ecology, and for him Nature and Farming are absolutely discrete (as they are, ironically, for Big Farmer). He complains that 40% of global land use is given over to farming, whereas “Only 15 per cent of the world’s land, by contrast, is protected for nature.”

Is not a traditional, chemical-free hay meadow, with its meadow brown butterflies and meadow pipits, “protected for nature”? For The Running Hare, I took a chemically-lashed arable field and turned it into a Victorian-type cornfield, which as well as giving “yield” ran anew with poppies and hares, cornflowers and red-leg partridge.

The British countryside has been farmed for 3,000 years, and in those millennia developed distinct farmland habitats, with allied, dependent species. The clue is in the names of the flowers: Cornflower, Meadowsweet, Corn Marigold. Today, in Britain, it is these flora and fauna of traditional farmland that is most under threat. Since the industrialisation of agriculture in the Fifties, some 97% of traditional hay meadows have disappeared, and arable flowers, grown in fields since the Stone Age, have become extinct. As for the farmland birds, here’s the report of theDepartment of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Wild Bird Populations in the UK, 1970 to 2014:

“The long term decline of farmland birds in the UK has been driven mainly by the decline of those species that are restricted to, or highly dependent on, farmland habitats (the ‘specialists’). Between 1970 and 2014, populations of farmland specialists declined by 69 per cent … Four farmland specialists (grey partridge, turtle dove, tree sparrow and corn bunting) have declined by 90 per cent or more relative to 1970 levels.”

In Britain’s fields, courtesy of Big Farmer, specialist birds, bugs and flowers totter on the edge of extinction. They are wild, but they live in a human-created habitat, farmland. Some arable flowers actually require the disturbance of ploughing to live. For the sin of impurity, farmland’s wild things are of no account to Monbiot. There is no place for them in his farmfree future. He therefore threatens to finish the work begun by Big Farmer.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: You're all wrong - George Monbiot says so

Post by TonyGosling »

George Monbiot is related to Nigel Lawson and his partner is CEO of Rewilding Britain, Rebecca Wrigley

The family company may be no more, but the family has thrown up a vast number of over-achievers in public life: from Alastair Salmon, head chef to the Lord Mayor of London, to Nigella Lawson — whose mother was Vanessa Salmon — the food writer and presenter. There are journalists such as the social commentator George Monbiot and Reuters’ Felix Salmon, and Nigella’s brother Dominic Lawson. There are “a whole raft of lawyers”, including Fiona Shackleton, the formidable baroness who has represented members of the royal family and Sir Paul McCartney in high-profile divorce cases.

https://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/feature ... y-1.487745

The joke, of course, is that the family company called itself J Lyons at all. Desperate to assimilate into British society, the Salmons and the Glucksteins found themselves a front man in the person of Joe Lyons who was, says Harding, not very smart but was more than happy to be the public face of a growing and successful company. Thus it was Joe Lyons who became Sir Joseph Lyons for services to the catering industry, while the founding architects of the success, Montague (Monte) Gluckstein and his brothers, maintained a more private profile.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: You're all wrong - George Monbiot, of MI6, says so

Post by TonyGosling »

Jonathan Murray
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.coast ... 1CZYMvUjvl

The Huxley Family + Green Templeton College
Where MI6 educates its propagandists.
Bastions of the establishment: there are Huxley's everywhere.
I'm interested in these:
Crispin Tickell (ex UN Ambassador, ex Warden of Green College)
Oliver Tickell (son of Crispin, Ecologist editor/Guardian)
Adam Tickell (Vice Chair of Sussex Uni)
Clare Tickell (Action for Children, Hanover Housing Association)
And these friends of the family:
Edward Goldsmith (ex-MI6, PPE Oxford, set up Ecologist/Green Party)
George Monbiot (Green College, the Guardian)
...and all linked to Green Templeton College, Oxford.
Templeton College is closely linked to the Saïd Business School, Oxford funded by fellow billionaire Wafic Saïd (of al-Yamamah fame).
So it seems what I have found is this.
The Templeton (Sir John Templeton, American anglophile, Rhodes Scholar, Oxford Uni, MI6?) Foundation funds 'Christian, conservative, freemarket capitalist' causes. So probably has helped Mr Monbiot and the Ecologist directly.
Cecil Howard Green, 'philanthropist' (British, CEO Texas Instruments) who set up Green College which then merged with Templeton College.
My guess is this is one big Foreign Office recruitment office and money laundering operation.
Chosen candidates are given places at the college and then given easy PhDs (like Monbiot) which they then use to get academic credibility and eventually easy jobs in the media.
Boom.
Alumni | Green Templeton College
gtc.ox.ac.uk
Alumni | Green Templeton College
Join our international Green Templeton alumni community and network with fellow alumni. Stay in contact to receive news and invitations to our events!
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: You're all wrong - George Monbiot, of MI6, says so

Post by TonyGosling »

The Guardians Links to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.coast ... 1gwPjqyVQl

The Guardian is busy spreading conspiracy theories about Trump (see for example village idiot George Monbiot's lame article about Atlantic Bridge) but the Guardian is heavily linked to an MI6-front called the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD).
What is the WFD?
It pretends to be an organisation that backs pro-democratic groups around the world. In fact it's a Foreign Office-funded front which MI6 uses to organise protests against, and subsequently remove from power, governments which are not pro-British. i.e. it destroys independent countries and turns them into puppet states to be exploited by British companies.
A notable recent success was funding the demonstrations against the democratically elected government in Ukraine, which created a coup that turned the country over to a government run by Nazi sympathisers.
It also spends taxers money on helping the pro-British monarchy stay in power in Jordan and ensuring Tamils are killed democratically in Sri Lanka.
Whats the link to the Guardian?
The financial wizard behind the Guardian & the network of businesses connected to the Guardian is Paul Naismith. Surprisingly he is also the Finance Director of.. the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
So is it any surprise that the Guardian supported the Nazi takeover in Ukraine and supports pretty much all British government foreign policy?
How can a newspaper claim to be impartial when its finance director also runs an MI6 front?
And if you wanted to you could ask the question - does Paul Naismith work for MI6? And then you can ask - does MI6 own the Guardian?
Ukraine
wfd.org
Ukraine
Visit the post for more.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18428
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Re: You're all wrong - George Monbiot, of MI6, says so

Post by TonyGosling »

John Kelsey
https://www.facebook.com/john.kelsey.5/ ... 9xKo3ftyel


Un-Extinction Rebellion:
"Who'd have guessed going after a Tory PM's father, exposing his perverse obsession with 'population policies' would incur the wrath of XR more than anything else we've done. If only they'd direct the same energy towards scrutinising our research; instead of begging BigBrother to 'shut us down'.
As amusing as the thought may be that our fate rests at the fingertips of some Silicon Valley hipster on a beanbag with his company laptop; we have created the UNXR Mailing List, just to be sure.
To join, simply email: unxr@nowhere.news
This way you'll be able to keep hearing from us, even if this page gets deleted.
Since it seems like we may have hit a nerve with Stanley Johnson, we thought we'd continue exploring the bizarre web of connections between him, his children, and other Tory Establishment families that play prominent roles in both political and environmental 'narratives' (as seen on TV). Stanley Johnson's time as Conservative Member of the European Parliament was during Margaret Thatcher's reign as PM, and followed directly on from his previous position as a senior official in the EU Commission.
We've already noted his first wife's connection to Sir Crispin Tickell, the UN diplomat that persuaded Thatcher to give her speech to the Royal Society on the effects of CO2 on the climate in 1988. Thatcher later gave a similar speech at the UN in 1989, which happened to be during Tickell's stint as Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN.
Now, here's where it gets weird! After leaving that post in 1990, Tickell became Warden of Green College, Oxford; it was here, that in 1993 he offered a Visiting Fellowship (at the College's Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding) to the nephew of Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson - a certain George Monbiot, whose father Sir Raymond Monbiot CBE was also a deputy chairman of the Conservative party.
George Monbiot has made an embarrassment of himself in recent years after doggedly defending the UK/US intelligence operation in Syria known as the White Helmets - a position that he shared with then Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, who provided some £32 million in funding to the group. The White Helmets were supported by a UK company called Mayday Rescue. "In October 2016 a young man left Oxford University and walked straight into a position as Operations manager at Mayday Rescue. His name is Archie Gilmour. He is the son of Andrew Gilmour the "Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and Head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in New York.” Archie Gilmour is Boris Johnson's godson.
Tickell and Lawson have been friends since school. Both were friendly with the late financier James Goldsmith; and both Nigel Lawson and his son Dominic were editors of the Conservative Spectator magazine, a post later filled by Boris Johnson. Dominic is married to Rosa Monckton, sister of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He served as an advisor to Thatcher and was a founding member of James Goldsmith's Referendum Party - the precursor to UKIP. Meanwhile, James' brother Edward was one of the founders of the UK Green Party, as well as the Ecologist magazine, a position also held by his nephew Zac Goldsmith, who is currently Conservative Minister of State for Environment & International Development, and married to Alice Rothschild. Amusingly, Nigel Lawton and Christopher Monckton are the among the most prominent British 'climate deniers' that Monbiot frequently rails against in his polemics for the Guardian. As it happens, Stanley Johnson also had a weekly column for the G2 section of The Guardian back in 2005, while Amelia Gentleman, the wife of Boris' brother Jo (another Tory MP) also writes for the Guardian.
Let's remind ourselves that it was in fact Stanley Johnson who wrote the introduction and commentary to the official text of the UN's 1993 Rio Earth Summit, wherein the Agenda 21 policy was articulated. Johnson is not the only UN acolyte to publicly align themselves with the demands of XR; Farhana Yamin led their delegation to meet with UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove earlier this year. Shortly after which, Gail Bradbrook was filmed in an interview with Sky News stating that senior advisors to Theresa May had informed XR representatives that they needed XR 'to give them the social permission to do the necessary' - i.e. to enact Climate Emergency legislation, which the UK government promptly did following XR's London protests. Meanwhile Boris Johnson recently delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly in which he acknowledged the threats presented by modern technology, but then committed the UK to its further development, whilst declaring a "need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology." He also spoke of the necessity of adopting 'green tech' in "our common struggle against climate change."
While these links don't present anything concrete, they nonetheless show us just how interconnected the people who find their way into the media spotlight really are.
Food for thought-crimes."
16 comments
Jonathan Murray
John Kelsey do know that News from Nowhere is a facist publication?

3 yEdited

John Kelsey
No, and this is copied and pasted from un extinction rebellion's page. I will check it out.

3 y

Jonathan Murray
Yeh please do mate - Troy Southgate says hes a 'national-anarchist' but its the same hate he's selling. Some of their stuff is very interesting - but the point is that he believes that humanity is based on race and that justifies genocide.. whilst claiming to be against de-population...

3 yEdited

John Kelsey
Had a quick look through their stuff, surely anarchism, national or otherwise, is opposed to hierarchial social structures that tend to oppress. There is so many sets and subsets of ideologies nowadays it's getting ridiculous.

3 y

Jonathan Murray
Yeh to say you are an anarchist but believe in racial hierarchies is a fundamental contradiction!

3 y

Jonathan Murray
John Kelsey I guess they would say that they respect other races but that they don't belong here..

3 y

Jonathan Murray
But if you believe in the idea of 'race' you are specifically wanting to believe that your race is superior - thats the whole point of rulers inventing the idea of race.

3 y

Jonathan Murray
All rulers sell their slaves lies in order to make them submissive.

3 y

Jonathan Murray
But they have taken up the right track with Monbiot - hes a plant. I knew it when I first met him 25 years ago. But that whole Ecologist gang are just a new (old) ideas generator for the bourgeoisie. And they are part of the anti-EU pro-Brexit English nationalist current in the British establishment. Zac Goldsmiths money is all tucked away offshore hidden from the EU - and they are terrified their tax havens will be taken away by the EU.

3 yEdited

John Kelsey
In my opinion, any article or post that exposes the whole depopulation agenda of these Malthusian creeps is a good thing. Let's not forget, the main target of these policies are folk in developing countries (see Kissinger's NSSM 200)

3 y

Jonathan Murray
John Kelsey Yes but Troy Southgate is a believer in de-population! They want to ethically 'cleanse' europe of non-whites for fks sakes. You have to understand John - the people who run everything have total power. And they deliberately spread racism and fascism in order to stop us from seeing the real enemy - the economic system that makes them rich and powerful.

3 y

John Kelsey
He certainly seems to have a shady history. Although, his concept of national anarchism seems to me to be a lot closer to civic nationalism with an anarchist twist than anything like fascism. People can mellow out as they gain maturity, and it's certainly not fascistic to be skeptical about mass immigration. Elites have weaponised migration against their own populations when they deemed it necessary for hundreds of years. The Tories do so currently to drive down wages, and increase social tension - which in turn drives the malleable mass to turn you the state for increased security, ie. the curtailment of their own civil rights.

3 y

John Kelsey
This is a decent book on the subject, obviously as the author is from Cornell university, its very Western centric in its viewpoint, but it is a good dispassionate analysis of this particular tactic of statecraft.

3 y

John Kelsey
https://www.goodreads.com/.../7713464-weapons-of-mass...
Weapons of Mass Migration
GOODREADS.COM
Weapons of Mass Migration
Weapons of Mass Migration

3 y

Jonathan Murray
John Kelsey the English bourgeoisie have been very successful in maintaining their rule because the public school system they run ensures only people who they trust get any power. And they are all totally focussed on causing as much suffering as they can to their slaves to keep them weak and confused and dependent. Immigration is just one of those tools. But racism and fascism are the other tool - import people - make the locals hate them and hey presto you have loyal and compliant slaves all eagerly attacking each other. The first step we must take is against racism - we have to be united against them. Southgate is just part of the weaponry aimed at us.
Attachments
stanley Johnson world population and the UN book.jpg
Post Reply