I am stunned by Canada’s decision to ban George Galloway from entering the country. I have known George for too many decades to share in the hero-worship he attracts from some; but he is a truly talented speaker and debater. George was right on Iraq when so many Western politicians hid behind the coward’s shield of patriotism. He is right on the disaster of Afghanistan too, the full horror of which is still unfoldng. I see that three more Canadian soldiers were killed there yeasterday, and nine maimed. The kind of debate George brings is urgently needed in Canada.
I was also surprised by the Canadian government spokesman’s description of him as an “Infandous street corner Cromwell”. Cromwell was a truly great man, a towering figure, with a driving concern for the common good. His statue stands guard outside Parliament. A peculiar comparison indeed.
Canadians should be ashamed today. George has fallen foul of the trick by the Israeli lobby of tarring everybody sympathetic to the Palestinians as a terrorist.
There is a spirit of protectionism abroad in these troubled times – of intellectual protectionism. As the frailties of an economic system built upon unrestrained greed and speculation become clear, as it becomes more and more obvious that recent Western invasions of Muslim lands are a drive to corner key areas for access to increasingly scarce hydrocarbons, and as the spectre of climate change looms over everything that was viewed as “Progress”, governments are desperate to control the narrative thier population hears.
The British government banned Geerst Wilders and several Muslim theologians. Canada is banning George Galloway, of all people. When the British banned the Dutch MEP Wilders, the Dutch government commendably supported the right to free speech in Europe and the Dutch Ambassador offered to meet him at Heathrow. The British government should make Canada know of our displeasure at the banning of somone for voicing opinions which are held by a large proportion of the British nation.
Fat chance.
Researcher:
To Lincoln and JFK you can add Garfield as well. Only one US President has taken on the banksters, won and lived to tell the tale. That was Andrew Jackson. The lesson the banksters learned from that was clearly “never again”.
I’m getting increasingly dubioua about climate change as well. The other planets are getting warmer as well. Something to do with the sun by any chance?
Anas:
I have to say that from Constantine, through priest Stalin, right up to Bush and Blair, the record of religious politicians has been, to put it politely, patchy.
Thanks Craig,
I’m a Galloway fan. His dismantling of that female Sky presenter along with him fronting that US senate enquiry, the members of which had no idea what hit them, were just priceless.
Otherwise hats off to the comments. And yes, it is the sun. Besides the other planets magically doing what the earth does, the earth was hotter in the thirties than today.
I read just lately an article detailing how Russia, Canada and the US were squaring off over the newly defrosted and navigable Northern passage. Along with the possibilities for shipping were discussions about resources and oil, and who would get what. Astoundingly it was not written last year but rather 70 years earlier.
Meanwhile last year’s identical stories are now moot what with the ocean all having frozen again. This re-freeze being not so surprising given that the earth has been effectively cooling for the last five years.
But that’s what the earth does. It warms up, it cools down, it does whatever the sun dictates. Big thing, the sun. Bloody huge. Earth changing huge. Global warming is a con to have us under some variety of centrally controlled carbon credit regime. Include me out.
And whilst it’s true that Andrew Jackson wasn’t assassinated, it certainly wasn’t for want of the Bankers trying. Without being certain I think he survived two attempts. Otherwise, Jackson is a man worth reading. His farewell address is eye-popping. He made George Galloway look shy, ha ha.
Right on Researcher @ 12.28 am
Apart from his Big Brother cringe making appearance, I admire George Galloway enormously for his tenacity, his grasp on facts and for his debating abilities. I also envy him for his energy. After completing the Viva Palestina 5,000 mile trek which must have been physically exhausting and scary when they got to the melee in Egypt, he’s off to Canada and taking on the Jewish lobby there.
@Anas: “conscience is incomplete without connecting to God”. Utter rubbish. We humans are quite capable of deducing, without God, which actions are harmful, which are harmless, and which are both and require balanced judgment. This thread incidentally is not about religion – please keep the discussion on topic, or post elsewhere.
@others – the thread is not about global warming, either, so this would be veering off-topic too. But as an aside, it is worth my pointing out that not everything is a conspiracy. There is a danger that some of the regular commentators here may look, to the external observer, somewhat jumpy or paranoid, which I dare say is not the best sort of support you can offer Craig. Meanwhile, most scientists are agreed that climate change is happening, and that we need urgent social change in order to combat it. Be scientifically sceptical by all means, but be sceptical about scepticism too – otherwise you may be helping delay the change that, in some years, it turns out we needed after all.
Jon, you wrote:
“Perhaps this is why I unconsciously avoid 9/11 theories – the idea that a modern “liberal” “democratic” government would be complicit in blowing up 3000 of its civilians for ‘realpolitik’ or media manipulation is just too horrible to contemplate.”
Unfortunately, you are not alone there, Jon.
For a reply please see my last comment on:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/islamophobia_an.html
Further to my “…Anyway, my guess is we have not heard the last of Chas Freeman” remark and comments by MJ and others. There is an interesting article in this weeks London Review of Books by John Mearsheimer – “The Lobby Falters”. It is as good a summation of events to date on the matter and lends weight to it’s having done serious damage to the US Zionist Lobby. We can but hope. http://tinyurl.com/cvf9ad
As for Jon’s strictures about ‘Conspiracy theories’: it’s easy to see where he’s coming from but, the fact is our own governments are awash with them in service to the approved narrative. In similar vein to ‘anti-Semitism’, the term is invariably used as a pejorative to close down reasonable debate on very difficult subjects that governments do not want debated. 9/11 is a classic case in point. The official version of events is a ‘Conspiracy Theory’. It is so full of holes and raises so many perfectly reasonable questions that the government steadfastly refuses to acknowledge (let alone attempt to answer) as to render it absurd.
Thanks for the link Sabretache, a thoughtful piece echoing some of the sentiments expressed here. The Freeman case is a potential turning point and my feeling is that it isn’t getting the coverage over here that it should. Despite Jon’s appetite for policing these threads, I think we should plug away at the matter.
Come to think of it Craig, if you read this, have you considered composing a beautifully insightful and excoriating piece about the Freeman affair? Just a thought.
@sabretache – on your view that ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes a label to discredit a theory regardless of its merit in order to shut down the debate, I agree entirely. But that is a different point to the ones that I was making, which is that (a) not everything must be a conspiracy, and (b) I don’t feel I am easily brainwashed, and I still regard climate change as real and not manufactured by a conspiracy.
@MJ – there is no need for incivility. But let me expand on my reasons for “policing” – it was the introduction of religion that most annoyed, and I think most of us would probably agree that that was wildly off-topic. Of course, you could throw your vote in here for allowing any discussion on any thread, but the ‘netiquette’ guideline of keeping things (reasonably) on-topic exists for a good reason.
“Perhaps this is why I unconsciously avoid 9/11 theories – the idea that a modern “liberal” “democratic” government would be complicit in blowing up 3000 of its civilians for ‘realpolitik’ or media manipulation is just too horrible to contemplate.”
Yes, the problem there Jon is that you’re being guided by your emotions and preconpetions rather than the evidence. Suggest instead that you take a long, hard dispassionate look at the evidence then tailor your emotional response accordingly.
Otherwise your argument is rather like saying: “I cannot believe that a democratically elected leader like Hitler could do all those things to German citizens, therefore the holocaust did not happen”.
Incidentally, I have never heard anyone say that they are easily brainwashed. Also, being guided by emotions and preconceptions rather than evidence and reason is a prerequisite to being easily brainwashed.
“there is no need for incivility”
Apologies if it was construed as uncivil. It was intended merely as a sly dig. Craig’s piece was rather complex I thought, raising several issues and, as is the nature of things, comments can rather take on a life of their own.
But apologies again anyway, I abhor ad hominem attacks and I can see that the use of the word policing was dangerously close to the margin.
I’ve got to echo MJ again.
I too do not intend offence and I will always try not to become involved in anything that can be construed as a personal attack. I too confess irritation at the religious exhortation post but I find that the best way to deal with such things is by ignoring them. If they are clearly consonant with the post subject, then a reasoned reply may be called for. Otherwise silence is golden.
Of course Jon is right in saying that not everything is a conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean some things aren’t. I tend to be sceptical of conspiracy theories myself, preferring the cock-up and lack-of-imagination explanations in most instances. But several years’ reading around the blogs has pretty well convinced me that there was more behind 9/11 than the official story revealed – there are far too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions.
And of course climate change is happening and calls for protective measures. The question is, how far is it man-made? There is a long history of climate change that wasn’t, and the sun is not a static entity.
MJ, thanks for your measured reply, it is much appreciated, and in response I will try to go easier on wildly off-topic items [someone else is doing it for me, anyway, on today’s Sky thread :o)]. sabretache is right that sometimes silence is the best response.
> Suggest instead that you take a long,
> hard dispassionate look at the
> evidence then tailor your emotional
> response accordingly.
OK, I will; @researcher elsewhere has suggested a video to get me started. Though there is plenty of open corruption and lying, as I’ve said in the past, and we need to deal with that, I tend to cite time limitations as the primary reason why I’ve not tackled 9/11 theories in any detail. But as per my previous honesty, I would be initially inclined to give up activism altogether if sections of the US establishment are willing to sacrifice thousands of their own civilians for some ‘grand chessboard’ rubbish. Though you would be right to point out that, if true, activism would be more necessary than ever.
In terms of climate change, I have done my research – “Heat” is one of the best “fact collections” around, from George Monbiot. I know he’s not universally popular amongst some activists but I nevertheless hold him in high regard (with minor exceptions).
If I may say of the 9/11 theorists here generally, I think your “reasoned” approach is refreshing. I have met a few 9/11 theorists in the past, and they have tended to be bullying in their approach to their belief system. This ignores the substantial cognitive dissonance met by all sceptics, and accordingly turns rational people off immediately.
> Incidentally, I have never heard
> anyone say that they are easily
> brainwashed.
Ha, true! But my position is somewhere between the radical analyses of Chomsky, Pilger, and Media Lens. I am therefore quite used to taking up unfashionable views, so I humbly suggest that I am less vulnerable than the lager-swilling Sun reader 🙂
Jon [and others]:
Re 9/11, read this for a start:
http://diehardthehunter.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/this-intense-grid-part-1/
I’ve been following this person’s blogs for about two years now, and my initial scepticism has slowly turned into a high regard for his or her accuracy and carefully documented research, and their courage in ruffling so many powerful feathers.
They are that rare thing – a patriotic – in the genuine sense – US Republican who is as appalled at what is going on as many European critics of US policies are.
Also, wise up on the Project for a New American Century – PNAC [Google them]. Read their manifesto, and recognise several familiar names among the signatories. Think about what has happened since it was written, and ask yourself whether there could be the seeds of a successful “open conspiracy” here….
Many thanks to MJ and sabretache for their links .
A short video here of Baroness Tongue on the subject in the House of Lords —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFUIZ4FcI
“They are that rare thing – a patriotic – in the genuine sense – US Republican who is as appalled at what is going on”
These days they are pretty much the only ones who can see what’s going on. I still consider myself left of centre, but of all the original US presidential candidates arch-Republican Ron Paul is the only one who would have got my vote.
Cromwell was Britain’s only dictator – so hated by the public that his body was exhumed and he was hung as a corpse!
I doubt that Gallaway will ever get that sort of power, even though he would like to.
Canada, as a free country – one of the few left on this planet, is perfectly entitled to decide who should come into its country – that is one of the nice things about freedom – its a shame we don’t follow the same ideals here.
We do. People are quite frequently denied entry to the UK – recently, an elected Dutch MP and an American homophobic preacher.
I’m a longtime campaigner for gay rights and free speech, and I think both should be allowed in. If they had committed any offence while here, they could have been deported.
Why should Galloway be denied the right to speak his mind in Canada?
Degangli: I’m not aware that the decision to ban Galloway was as a result of some huge groundswell of public opinion. It was due entirely to one particular special interest group exerting its undue influence on the Canadian Immigration dept.
Jon, unraveling the deception is not an easy task.
You need to understand that the banksters rule by
leading the apparent opposition to themselves, too.
Their shills also lead the 911 conspiracy truth movement.
Please keep that in mind.
The German/French television channel Arte made a
documentary about how the CIA financed the famous
left intellectuals in Europe since WW2 with some 50 million dollars.
For the USA see “Left Gatekeepers”:
http://911review.com/denial/imgs/left_gatekeepers.gif
Medialens too consistently suppresses knowledge about conspiracies.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020726_Mainstream_Conformity.htm
The income of George Monbiot and many of your former heroes is on the line:
http://www.rense.com/general75/time.htm
What you need, to find out who’s lying, is a leverage point.
Find something hotly debated, then try to find
uncontested evidence showing one side is hiding an important point.
For information on San Francisco bankruptcy attorney, San Francisco bankruptcy lawyer, bankruptcy attorneys in San Francisco, bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco, bankruptcy attorney in San Francisco Call us at 415.963.4004
Anyone need a bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco? Craig, do you allow advertising on your site?
@researcher. I don’t think that article from ML proves that they “suppress knowledge about conspiracies” – there’s a flaw in your logic there. The Chomsky/Herman model (used by ML) tends to reject conspiracy *in the media system*, preferring a set of rules based on commercial pressure, the costs of dissenting and class-based societal shaping, and I personally think they are very sound. The academic work (“Manufacturing Consent”) is extremely thorough and is well worth your time, in my view.
However, as far as I know, Media Lens have not discussed 9/11 theories, so I don’t think they can be told off for suppressing theories of that nature. True, Chomsky and Monbiot have both spoken out on it, though surely they are welcome to be skeptics if they wish? I can understand why some people might regard Monbiot as a “left gatekeeper” – since he forms part of a media system he clearly disapproves of – but Chomsky? He is regarded by the establishment as too radical to be allowed space in any newspaper, and I am just glad he is able to find willing book publishers for his excellent work.
Interestingly, the Rense article you put forward uses the Reichstag fire example as evidence that a “well accepted conspiracy” can exist. However, I read recently (could well have been here) that the Reichstag may in fact not have been a false flag operation at all, even though it was still used by the Nazis for evil ends anyway.
I do agree with your general point though that one needs to keep a rational and scientific mind about everything, and I shall try to do that 🙂
“Media Lens have not discussed 9/11 theories, so I don’t think they can be told off for suppressing theories of that nature”
What’s the difference between not discussing and suppressing?
Medialens were not suppressing anything. It was the case that the 9/11 debate was taking over the message board. The discussion was transferred to the forum on the same site and continues there as far as I know.
@MJ – an excellent question. I use the word “suppression” to mean the deliberate and intentional omission of discussion. Not discussing something, on the other hand, can mean exactly that, and is not necessarily the same as deliberately trying to squash a discussion.
That said, I appreciate that the difference in practise can become fuzzy. For example, is the absence of active debate in the mainstream media on, say, the true number of deaths in Iraq caused by the war, an error of omission, or active suppression? Some may well say that reporters have been paid not to discuss it (and that’s a valid opinion, though I don’t agree with it).
My view, for what its worth, is that it’s somewhere between the two. Partly it’s a subconscious thing; a British journalist doesn’t often like to consider that British “boys” who are “the real heroes” may have caused or triggered 0.8-1.3m excess deaths (Lancet report). Also, since this is more controversial than suggesting that “tens of thousands” of “regrettable” deaths have been caused, it costs time (and hence money) to defend these views, which annoys the proprietor and the shareholders. As a result, eventually the editor internalises the outer limits, and rarely crosses them in the future.
Reader pressures are important too: Haaretz recently carried a story on IDF soldiers who were printing battalion T-shirts advocating the shooting of pregnant Palestinian woman (latter tagline: “1 shot, 2 kills”). The defence was that it was all in jest, despite the horrific depictions. A number of readers were, however, horrified at the implicit criticism of the IDF, even though (one would have thought) it was quite justified. Here, a pressure is set up for the paper not to cover stories of this kind with the same honesty, or perhaps a smaller story of the same kind might be deliberately omitted to avoid accusations of bias.
Jon, you haven’t seized the opportunity to learn. You have admitted not having looked much into the by now quite obvious conspiracy behind 9-11. Obviously you still prefer clinging to your old beliefs. Enough for me.
We should all salute Canada’s strength, courage and indefatigability!