I was motivated to write the following as a disclaimer to a link to the Guardian article If you want to know who's to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate of Dec 09, linked to from the article A climate con: Analysis of the "Copenhagen Accord" 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 "The Shock Doctrine" 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 articles, 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 '9/11'. 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 Noam Chomsky, of whom I have written in my article "Noam Chomsky, phony American dissident" of 26 May 09.
Phone American Dissident
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"
www.merriam-webster.com 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 !