"Everyone who disagrees with me is a malicious liar".
Which is funny, isn't it, because there's no possibility at all that George Monbiot is a malicious liar.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Which is funny, isn't it, because there's no possibility at all that George Monbiot is a malicious liar.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Imagine -- an entire career that consists of nothing but the expression of bad faith, projected outwards, from the 1990s onwards.
Every claim he has made has crumbled. Every prognostication failed.
Yet it doesn't dampen his energy, or his lust for power.
Every claim he has made has crumbled. Every prognostication failed.
Yet it doesn't dampen his energy, or his lust for power.
He will argue against war on Monday, and then quick as a flash, demand war on Tuesday.
On Monday, anyone who supported a war was a bloodthirsty tyrant. And then anyone questioning the casus belli on Tuesday is a tyrant-apologist.
On Monday, anyone who supported a war was a bloodthirsty tyrant. And then anyone questioning the casus belli on Tuesday is a tyrant-apologist.
This is how it works. *Every* argument (A) for a radical course of action (B) has a counter argument (X), which holds that A is not sufficient for B. Rather than defending that A==B, Monbiot claims that anyone holding with X stands to loose profit from B, and is therefore a liar.
Monbiot, who used to style himself as a sceptic of state and corporate power, observes that very often, people who argue X[1] against A[1]/B[1], also argue X[2], against A[2]/B[2].
But we can notice that he, who argues for A[1] invariably argues for A[2].
But we can notice that he, who argues for A[1] invariably argues for A[2].
B *always* necessitates the novel acquisition of extraordinary power, and A is *always* expressed in the starkest moral terms: the end of civilisation/all life on Earth; genocide; the unnecessary deaths of millions...
Any nuance in X about B is 'denial', 'apology', or 'profit'.
Any nuance in X about B is 'denial', 'apology', or 'profit'.
Disagreeing about A or B is not permitted.
It's amazing to think that he is routinely passed off as a public intellectual.
His symptom is the characteristic of contemporary intellectual left British journalism.
It is vacuous.
It's amazing to think that he is routinely passed off as a public intellectual.
His symptom is the characteristic of contemporary intellectual left British journalism.
It is vacuous.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
