The Flip Flopping Of George Monbiot

[pisshead]

The Flip Flopping Of George Monbiot
Icon of the ineffective left slams 9/11 skeptics when he was one of the first Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
After incurring the wrath of 9/11 skeptics the world over two weeks ago, George Mobiot has returned for more with the publication of a scathing attack in the London Guardian that is tantamount to a toddler's over the top tantrum that perfectly highlights the problem with the ineffectual left.
"Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues... are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish."
Monbiot's ranting here highlights a great problem with modern day political activism, division.
As an iconic figurehead of lefty thought in the vain of Chomsky and Vidal, Monbiot underscores the problem with the ineffectual left in his commentary. That is they simplify world politics to the point where their actions only serve to aid those that are really ruining our planet behind the scenes by encouraging a focus on the puppets out front.
Monbiot states:
"you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy."
As part of their debunking critics such as Monbiot routinely use this tactic, asking "do you really think an administration as incompetent as the Bush regime could pull off such a sophisticated operation as 9/11?"
We answer "do you really believe that George Bush runs anything?" The ineffectual left loves to snicker on and on about how dumb and incompetent he is but still do not have the wherewithal to realise that the man is not in charge of anything. He takes three naps per day and cannot structure sentences, no of course we do not believe George Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11, no more so than we believe a man dying of kidney failure in a cave in Afghanistan masterminded it.
The ineffectual left is more confused and misguided than it says the "conspiracy loons" are. They know that the US government is run by the heads of the top corporations who make up the think tanks and non-elected globalist policy makers such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral commission, yet they stay obsessed with attacking the figurehead Bush and the right who, only in their minds, are the root of all that is wrong. It's a displacement activity, something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do.
Many within the ineffectual left focus their attention on America as the evil empire, while ignoring the fact that American foreign policy is dictated by international cartels, foreign bankers and the heads of corporate global institutions.
Monbiot directly attacks the 9/11 truth movement as cowards:
"The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights."
The ineffectual left does not understand our movement because they cannot neatly fit us into the political categories they so dearly love to associate with on the one hand, and oppose on the other. Not caring enough to attempt to understand our outlook in a mature way, they label us as "loons" "idiots" and "morons". In this sense they play directly into the hands of the elite who wish to keep the underclasses at each others throats so as not to be faced with one central oppositional movement - The People.

When Mr Monbiot raves on about how we are a "mortal danger" to popular oppositional campaigns, he fails to take this into account. His assertion that he is a part of a REAL political fight and we are somehow admitting powerlessness, and are thus cowards, smacks of immaturity and sounds like self important snobbery.
Monbiot declares that "9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do." I have already presented how Monbiot himself can just as validly be shown to be guilty of the same label. What is it exactly that we ought to be doing according to the great activist George Monbiot?
Monbiot has a comfortable weekly column in a fashionable establishment lefty newspaper and spends his time jumbo jetting around the world complaining about how we're destroying it with carbon emissions.

As Kurt Nimmo so succinctly puts it:

[align=left]For all his effort and that of his pals, Monbiot has managed to make the machine of progress, as he gauges it, turn in reverse. It is not the 9/11 â??moronsâ?� destroying Mr. Monbiotâ??s â??movements,â?� but his own enervated struggle, his own inability to understand reality and deal with it, even as he has made a career out of complaint minus substantial result. [/align]

In fact, Mr. Monbiot and his ilk are part and parcel of the â??mainstream political process,â?� especially considering the degree of foundation funding and support his cherished â??movementsâ?� receive, from the likes of the Ford, Schumann, Rockefeller, and MacArthur foundations, to name but a handful.

Monbiotâ??s â??progressiveâ?� left was long ago sold down the river. In effect, the foundation oiled â??movementsâ?� so dear to Monbiotâ??s heart are completely and utterly ineffectual, having accomplished dreadfully little over the decades, and instead serve as a facile target of convenience for Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oâ??Reilly, Michael â??Savageâ?� Weiner, Sean Hannity and the neocon fascists dominating the corporate media.

Monbiot's rants, the BBC hit pieces, the labeling of truthers as "idiots" - this all shows that 9/11 is the core issue in modern society. 9/11 questions are the key to unlocking understanding of the ongoing usurpation of the free democratic Western world by the old school elite and the way in which they use theatrical political divisions to achieve their own aims at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
As a matter of fact, it wasn't so long ago that George Monbiot was asking a great deal of his own 9/11 questions.
In a piece written for the London Guardian on September 25th 2001, just after the attacks, he raised many questions regarding the real perpetrators, analysed evidence and wrote:
"When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it...For these reasons and many others (such as the initial false certainties about the Oklahoma bombing and the Sudanese medicine factory, and the identification of live innocents as dead terrorists), I think we have some cause to regard the new evidence against Bin Laden with a measure of scepticism."
Has Monbiot forgotten that he asked us to question the events of 9/11? Seemingly he has and has also attempted to memory hole any evidence of this fact.
Here is a screenshot from Monbiot's website. Note that he writes one article per week. (Also note that he calls us do-nothing cowards when we write multiple articles per day compared to his one per week). Also note that there is two week gap where the above mentioned article should be. Why has this one been removed when all his other weekly ones are intact? Methinks Mr Monbiot has done a little flip flop here and tried to cover his tracks huh? but then again I would say that because I am a "conspiracy moron".
Why is it that Monbiot now accepts the official conspiracy theory? Has he seen some evidence that we haven't? Maybe the fat nosed Bin Laden confession that multiple experts have denounced as a fake was evidence enough for Monbiot to remove his earlier article that highlighted similar questions he now so bitterly fears are ruining "real political fights".
Monbiot needs to have a long hard think about what he is doing by decrying our movement and those like it as a mortal danger to those he associates himself with. It is time for all the popular oppositional movements to wake up and stop the bickering, it is time to start respecting each other and rationally debating each other's opinions and outlooks. Only this way can we ever hope to achieve a defeat of the "new world order", the "corporate elite", the "new empire".
Whatever you and your movement wish to call it, it is the same thing, it is very REAL, and we are fighting the same fight. George Monbiot's flip flopping bears this out, and highlights the fact that if we all stick to the same course we will prevail in the end, if we deviate, divide, bicker and rant we may fail.

Mr Monbiot ends his attack piece by stating "If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom." [align=left]Exactly Mr Monbiot, exactly. [/align]

pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on 02-22-2007. The Flip Flopping Of George Monbiot The Flip Flopping Of George Monbiot Icon of the ineffective left slams 9/11 skeptics when he was one of the first Steve Watson Infowars.net Wednesday, February 21, 2007 After incurring the wrath of 9/11 skeptics the world over two weeks ago, George Mobiot has returned for more with the publication of a scathing attack in the London Guardian that is tantamount to a toddler's over the top tantrum that perfectly highlights the problem with the ineffectual left. "Why do I bother with these Rating: 5

[pisshead]

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?


Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received[align=left]Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones[/align]


[align=left]Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 21, 2007[/align]

[align=left]The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.
Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.
Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.
From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.[/align]

[align=left]Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.[/align]

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.

Regards

BBC Information

Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website. 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.
[align=left]There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.
The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.
We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here.
Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.
If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future. [/align]