About George Monbiot

Fri, 2009-12-25 14:58 by James Sinnamon

I was motivated to write the following as a disclaimer to a link to the Guardian article of  Dec 09, linked to from the article of  Dec 09 by David Spratt.

George Monbiot has written a number of very incisive and damning critiques of our corrupt corporatised New World Order including "How Did We Get Into This Mess?" of 27 Aug 07, which shows how the propagandists for the doctrine, referred to as economic neo-liberalism, including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, began to organise at a meeting at a Swiss spa resort at Mont Pelerin in 1947, and, hence became known as the Mont Pelerin Society.

This article anticipated, albeit very concisely. by a few months, some of what was published in Naomi Klein's Towering a few months later.

Nevertheless, in spite of this, some serious questions hang over George Monbiot's head.

The first is his downplaying of the peril that human overpopulation poses to our environment and our very future. Whilst proclaiming himself to be an environmentalist, he has absurdly claimed that human over population is relatively trivial problem in comparison to over-consumption and inequality. The implication that many draw from that message, whether or not that is his intention, is that one should focus almost exclusively on the former and do little about the latter. For more information, see other , tagged with "George Monbiot".

The second, and, I believe, even more serious, is his denial of the clear evidence implicating senior figures in the administration of President George W Bush in the false flag terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, otherwise referred to as . On at least one occasion, Monbiot publicly argued this in a debate with David Ray Griffin.

For me, effectively helping to cover up that crime raises very serious questions for anyone purporting to oppose the agenda of George Bush and his successor, President Obama. This causes me to strongly suspect that Monbiot may in fact, be a 'left gatekeeper' in the mould of , of whom I have written in my article of 26 May 09.

Topic:

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2010-07-11 00:15

It is a shame James you miss the wider point that Chomsky may be making The title of your article does not ring true for me the " Noam Chomsky" part I can understand, its his name right but "phony" and "American" and "dissident" I don't get starting with "dissident" the etymology of the word means to "sit apart" defines it as " disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief" wikipedia likewise or similar " is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution" Yes he disagrees, yes is brilliant at challenging conventional held views !!!BUT Part does he "sit apart" hardly in reality is this accurate. No for me he does not He is not peddling the American is right line, and good on him, sooooo much American policy in the rest of the world leads to death and destruction, needless IMHO "phony" much is phony with American culture but alas not Noam Chomsky the man has rigor in his arguments and integrity As evidence i site his visit to Australia before the Australian SAS troops stopped the genocide in East Timor. Chomsky was a lone voice saying that this should not happen, he would speech of nothing else or always turn the topic back to what needed to be done. And history proved him right for once ! What was phony about his man I don't really get Sure he has said a lot and has a very deep eclectic knowledge, so the easiest thing to do is to single out a few viewpoints & connections were he can be "typed" or described as in a "mould". Which is silly really when you look at his broad contribution to establishing the truths in human affairs on this planet. Just as it is a little dumb to say Monbiot is a "mould" of Chomsky. Intellectuals of the left are way too diverse to simplistically categories this way, don't you think ? Wikipedia goes further correctly or not to say that the word "dissident" through the use about 'soviet dissidents' referring to themselves to mean "it came to refer to an individual whose non-conformism was perceived to be to the good of a society" not just those opposed to society. Chomsky I never thought was opposed to society per se. but with this new 20th century connotation it muddies the meaning for me to bang together "phony" and "dissident" in the same phrase. { bit oxymoronic } while being American is an accident of his birth he has to endure. He really is better at world humanitarian citizen than most Americans I have met. And James lighten up bit pleasse !

northcote (not verified)

Wed, 2011-10-05 04:24

Monbiot is entirely correct. Hundreds of studies demonstrate the worth of the modified I=PAT equation and the importance of affluence and technology variables therein. I was taught this stuff by National Academicians in the States in the 1980s and hold the relevant degrees, including a PhD in Sahelian drought and livelihoods analysis that required several years residence in African villages where I monitored growth rates along with socioeconomic and environmental variables. I was at one of the early Campaign for Political Ecology meetings in London where overpopulation was the theme. Speakers, from the UK Green party in the early 90s, presented an overpopulation mantra that was straight out of the late 1960s, including the wildly inaccurate projections of Norman Myers that have never been proven on climate refugee numbers. A young Monbiot, by then carless, getting famous, and active in social movements and starting journalism, stood up and offered a blistering critique of their barely credible data. Monbiot, like me, has spent a lot of time in Africa and observing first hand. He also cites credible literature, unlike Optimum Population activists who look at websites. The Machakos Story (More People Less Erosion, Tiffen and Mortimore, 1994, book now available online through ODI) puts to bed the Malthusian myth about African overpopulation. They cite Boserup, who had it right when she argues people create environmental affordances, rather than the reverse. Mike Mortimore has some articles on that are based on 28 years continuous residence in West Africa and are pretty sound on the need for higher local population to meet labour demand, etc. the population-environment network at Columbia U, that I am associated with, also has frequent seminars on such topics held online. Malthusianism has taken a long time to die, is kept alive by a few (often elderly) residents that think their nations have too many people, and fail to address the major driving forces of change - politics and economics and influence on overall impact. The debate in Australia and in Melbourne is just embarrassing - quite racist, and no credible scholar has emerged arguing we have a population crisis based on numerical analysis alone. I also see a 9-11 conspiracy above - no thing has emerged there, either.

Add comment