In which I can't help noticing the lexigraphical similarity between "Monbiot" and "Moonbat"...

If you're like most Americans, you've probably never heard of George Monbiot. But he's important and influential, and I'm about to explain why.

He also appears to be nuts.

In recent years, there has been a disturbing increase in antisemitism among certain uncomfortably mainstream elements of the left. We've watched Jimmy Carter, Walt & Mearshimer, Alexander Cockburn and others argue that "AIPAC", "the Jewish lobby", "Zionists", or "Israel" secretly control American foreign policy. We deposed Saddam not because he refused to submit to weapons inspections, attacked his neighbors, funded terrorists, or violated a dozen or so UN resolutions -- but rather we did so on behalf of Israeli "expansionism". We've seen attacks on Jews escalate in Europe and watched the UK boycott Israeli professors. We've seen American protesters bearing signs [warning: graphic content] which remind one more of Wiemar Germany than the West Coast. We've even heard a leading US presidential candidate's self-described "mentor" teach his followers that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated for Israel's benefit.

I've suggested previously that when a vice appears among the left, that same vice must be imputed to the right -- however tenuous (or contrary) the evidence. If so, that may be the impetus behind the now-popular smear that evangelical Christians feel warmly towards Jews and tend to support Israel because they want to see them wiped out -- in order force the return of Jesus. It's all quite wonderful really: You take one of the most pro-Israeli groups in the US and claim they're secretly the worst haters of Israel. Hate is love, love is hate; Orwell himself couldn't have spelled out the scenario out any better.

(For the record, my own support of Israel tends to flow from my support of democracies in general. I have a warm feeling about Jews because I have a number of Jewish friends. (And I suspect Christians in general respect Jews because many revered biblical figures are Jews.) No-where in the New Testament is it suggested that someone can "bring back" Jesus by supporting Israel or starting wars -- and there is much to suggest the contrary. And I have never met a Christian yet -- in my entire life -- who believes such a thing. If there even are such people, I suspect they number in the mere hundreds or low thousands, and thus constitute a tiny, tiny fringe.)

The irony of this situation is that the really are a few people among the contemporary "right" who can be legitimately accused of hatred of Jews or Israel. Inconveniently, they happen to be people like the Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell libertarians -- often secular, and tending to echo the left's criticisms of US foreign policy -- and thus are more allies of the left than enemies. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to be loathed among the left.

As best I can trace it, this defamation was popularized (in the US) by Bill Moyers, who attributes it to George Monbiot, who writes for The Guardian in the UK. For example, Moyers mentions the charge back in 2004, in a primitive form (here), attributing it a then-recent expose by Monbiot. By 2005, the narrative had expanded to include the accusation that evangelicals were also intentionally trying to wreak ecological destruction to force Jesus's hand -- Moyer's airtight case bolstered by fabricated James Watt quotes originating in Grist magazine.

The Watt quotes have since been exposed as a forgery. I keep thinking someone in the mainstream media will set the record straight on the larger charge, but so far, no dice.

Belgium asserted, for one brief, shining decade, "universal jurisdiction" for its laws. It may sound like the height of hubris, but the Belgians agreed that if they passed a law, the entire world should obey it -- or else! Who needs other governments? One tiny European country will decide what's right and wrong for everyone, without any of that messy democratic participation stuff. Later, in 2003, Belgium came to their collective senses and repealed their attempt to govern the planet. For the moment anyway. (Still working on that "EU" thing, though, I hear.)

But if you think that's silly, consider this: George Monbiot attributes the exact same powers to himself, a single man.

This weekend, on his blog, Monbiot drew up his own interpretation of international law (passed by an overwhelming, unanimous vote of one), held a trial in absentia (acting as both judge and grand jury), and duly found John Bolton "Under-Secretary of State, US State Department" guilty of "the crime of aggression".

Monbiot also decided Bolton needed a good arresting and so -- acting as the executive branch as well -- decided he'd also perform the arrest himself.

Hay Festival organizers told the Telegraph newspaper earlier that Monbiot's effort would be "completely unlawful." “The Hay Festival has sought the advice of both police and lawyers, and has been unequivocally assured that a citizen’s arrest, or an attempt to instigate a citizen’s arrest, would be completely unlawful in these circumstances,” Director Peter Florence was quoted saying. “The Hay Festival remains committed to providing a platform for speakers from a diverse range of political and social backgrounds."

Before the event, a spokeswoman for Bolton told FOXNews.com that he has been aware of the controversy for about a week but would appear as planned.... She added that the festival has security, and Bolton "didn't have to go there," but flew over there because he was undeterred by Monbiot's threats.

Brave guy, that Bolton. Eloquent, too:

“I think there’s a larger issue here. You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper.” When individuals took actions outside the law, in their eyes to bring those responsible for the war to justice, “that is the point you move towards lawlessness and fascism,” he said. And when one’s views do [not] match those of the democratically elected government, “you have to accept that”, he added.

I've begun to suspect that guys like Monbiot aren't really in favor of democracy. When it goes their way, well and good. But when law or those annoying other voters diverge from their wishes, they're perfectly happy tossing aside that whole "rule of law" thing and taking matters into their own hands. It's one thing to nonviolently refuse to leave the front of a bus. It's quite another to decide you're going to kidnap a former diplomat with whom you disagreed, in an attempt to encourage others to do likewise.

Note again: This is the kind of person Bill Moyers treats as highly credible. So, by dint of his continued employment, does The Guardian. No ill will befall his career (quite to the contrary, I would suspect); there will be no questions raised about his objectivity, reliability, or judgment. Despite the fact he apparently regularly does stuff like this.

This is the kind of person from whom millions of people get their daily news, friends.