By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Prince of Wales, in aiming to be the end of democracy, may yet be the end of the monarchy. Notwithstanding that Europe’s most climate-skeptical party had just come top in the recent UK elections for the European Parliament, he intervened tendentiously in politics – as he now all too frequently does – to demand no less than an end to capitalism as we know it in the name of Saving The Planet from global warming that has not happened for a decade and a half.
The Prince told a meeting of the overpaid and overfed in London that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.
That won’t do. Even if “climate change” were “dangerously accelerating” (which it is not, for nearly all the key global indicators – temperature, sea ice, droughts, floods, hurricanes, rainfall, sunshine – show no exceptional trend), an essential duty of a future constitutional monarch is that on all matters of politics he should, as the ancient Greeks used to put it, keep absolute and holy silence.
All parties represented in the UK Parliament are already squandering tens of billions on addressing a non-problem with expensive non-solutions, such as windmills that cause greater CO2 emissions than they abate, and subsidies to all manner of unnecessary, diamond-encrusted boondoggles to make non-existent global warming go away, and madcap proposals such as the multi-billion-dollar deployment of 1500 Flettner-rigged trimarans with Thom fences on the rotating sail cylinders and power from the twin propellers driving atomizers to turn seawater into cloud condensation nuclei and fling them half a mile into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
Beam me up, Scotty.
It is not the place of the monarchy to take sides in political debates. A monarchy that allows itself to shuffle, mumbling and whining, down into the political arena and to indulge in advocacy for global totalitarianism on the basis of a flimsy and discredited pseudo-scientific pretext is a monarchy that has forfeited its right to rule.
Charles must go. His future, along with that of the thousand-year monarchy, is in the past. It used to be said there would soon be only five kings in the world: spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, and England. Scrub that last one.
Charles’ latest speech, whether he knew it or not, was part of a concerted campaign on the part of the international classe politique to persuade the world, with the active assistance of the sycophantic Marxstream media, to agree to a binding treaty by which sovereign nations would abandon their right to set their own environmental policy and allow a vast, entirely unelected international bureaucracy to rule them all.
To all who love democracy, this prospect is terrifying. The increasing brazenness and frequency of the lies being told about the climate, from Prince Charles’ more than usually ridiculous speech to the daftly hysterical climate assessments recently issued by Mr Obama and by Britain’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, the Royal Society, shows how desperate the totalitarians are to persuade the world to let them establish for the first time a global regime of absolute power wielded by supranational institutions entirely beyond the reach of any electorate.
The Founding Fathers of the United States foresaw many things when, in that long, hot Philadelphia summer, they drew up the Constitution. But they did not foresee that the United States, like many other nations, would come to be governed by people whose personal ambitions lay far beyond her shores, for they are global ambitions.
These global ambitions are not to extend nobly in the international sphere the athletic democracy that is their nation’s great gift to itself and to humanity, but instead to use the motive power of speciously-generated fear and the artifice of international treaty-making with like-minded totalitarians in other nations to bind their successors, and to bind the elected Congress in perpetuity without regard to the changing science or to the changing will of any future electorate.
The draft global climate treaty that failed in Copenhagen in 2009 failed in no small part because details of the draft had become public scant weeks before the conference began. There was a justifiable public outcry against it.
At the Durban climate conference in 2011 a further attempt at introducing a ruthless, intrusive and pernickety regime of global control was made, but again it was exposed publicly, exclusively, and in detail here at WattsUpWithThat. That posting became the most widely-read of some 500,000 on WordPress worldwide on the day of publication.
The junta that furtively directs the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change saw from these examples that conducting its affairs in public, as it is mandated to do, would prevent it from establishing its intended regime of absolute control. For if the mere people knew what it was up to they would not endure it.
At the 2012 climate conference in Doha, when I tried to obtain a draft of the Chairman’s conclusions – an always revealing document previously available at every conference but never reported on by journalists – a smirking clerk told me that no such document existed. The UNFCCC, twice before humiliated when its plans for world domination had been exposed, had scuttled, cockroach-like, underground.
Monckton of Arabia, Doha, 2012. The camel is the one on the right.
So now it is a race between the slow, inexorable emergence of the truth that the weather does not and will not change at the predicted rate or to the predicted degree and the vast army of princes, potentates, plutocrats, paper-pushers and pusillanimous panty-waists who have long wearied of democracy and have been quietly misusing the treaty-making power and abusing the scientific method with the undeclared but undeniable aim of eradicating all but the appearance of democracy, worldwide.
The day before yesterday, one nation might adopt Fascism, another Socialism, another Communism, another theocracy, another democracy. The systems competed, and democracy prevailed. The day after tomorrow, if the unholy alliance prevails, there will be one system, and no competition.
While competition existed, the totalitarians were seen off. Like it or not, the Berlin Wall came down. Yet they did not accept their defeat. They took over Greenpeace and other environmental groups and turned them into what have become, in all but name, totalitarian front groups whose real aim is not environmental but political.
That aim is the worldwide annihilation of the democratic and capitalist system that, for all its faults, has delivered more happiness and more benefit – in economic terms, more utility – to more people than any other political or economic disposition the world has known.
The Prince of Wales has morphed into just one more dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste. His speech was framed as a warning – and it is just that: a warning that he and his ilk are intending over the next 18 months to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them and to those whom they approve. Ballot-box? What’s that? Never heard of it.
Consider the following sentence:
“Over the next 18 months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the ‘last chance saloon’ in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Sometimes, mixed metaphors are entertaining. This one is merely leaden. We face (but do not pass through) a window of opportunity, then we vacate a lure (this is entirely without meaning), then we do not call in at the last-chance saloon (surely the Prince’s intention was to visit the last-chance saloon rather than missing the bus and failing to catch the tide?).
His is the bloodless, alien tongue of those who have conceived so total a contempt for democracy that they cannot wait to stifle it under a mountain of treaties and carbon controls and reporting requirements and quotas and taxes and subsidies and regulations and restrictions and Thou-Shalt-Nots.
And the Press will not come to the aid of the people. Before the Second World War, they near-unanimously fawned upon Hitler. After it, they near-unanimously fawned upon Stalin.
Now, they near-unanimously fawn upon the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the European Union, and a Lernaean Hydra of pampered, me-too, supranational bureaucracies whose defining characteristic is that not one of them is answerable either via the ballot-box to any electorate or via the courts to any jurisdiction.
Patrick Henry
This is a dangerous moment. All that the Founding Fathers of the United States had sought to achieve may very soon be set at naught. The irony is that in the plot to repudiate and repeal freedom and democracy and the cheerful chaos of the market-place the current leadership in the United States has enthusiastically made common cause with the very monarchy that the American Revolution so vigorously sought to supplant.
The year before that great Revolution, in St. John’s Church, Virginia, Patrick Henry cried, “Give me liberty or give me death!” In the coming months, unless we are very careful and very vigilant, it will not be the former.
I had also chosen to use what I consider “bookend” examples of royals and elected officials, rather than to list all possible invasive foreign (to me) threats over my liberty. I would restate it in general terms that though I may be forced to submit, I will never personally consent to abiding by the authority of anyone who I have not had the opportunity to vote for. Yes I know I’m ending that sentence with a preposition – live with it. Thanks again Christopher, I always learn from your posts and enjoy them. You keep us well informed of crazy stuff that we need to be prepared to face..
“Charles’ latest speech, whether he knew it or not, was part of a concerted campaign on the part of the international classe politique to persuade the world, with the active assistance of the sycophantic Marxstream media, to agree to a binding treaty by which sovereign nations would abandon their right to set their own environmental policy and allow a vast, entirely unelected international bureaucracy to rule them all.”
Very wonderful article but is there really any reason to be diplomatic about Prince Charles’ willful and knowing betrayal of his own country, in favor of Brussels’ rule?
UKIP’s Nigel Farage from an article entitled, “I seldom agree with Prince Charles. And I’m not about to start”
“The Prince has given two speeches to the European Parliament in the past: The first and most memorable being when he called for the EU Institutions to have more legislative power. This was based upon his firm belief that climate change is man-made, and only the power of supranational institutions like the EU – with their two parliaments and MEPs knocking up millions of air miles every year – can stop that.
MEPs gave the heir to the throne a standing ovation after that speech, in which he declared that in 10 years’ time we would have no polar ice caps left. Well, that’s seven years ago and I haven’t seen any polar bears drifting down the Thames clinging to life rafts. Nor did I join in the standing ovation at the time, as I did not agree with what the Prince said. I also do not think it is appropriate for the heir to a constitutional monarchy to want to take power away from his mother’s government.”
[MEP is a Member (Elected ???) of Parliment ? .mod]
Prince Charles- the product of centuries of Royal inbreeding.
As I wished here previously, long may Elizabeth II wave. Her mom outlived one of her two daughters. The reigning queen might also have to bury her first born.
The “man”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, looks like a chimp. Behaves like one too. He is obviously a regressive evolutionary throwback. No need to get rid of him, just put him in a zoo and feed him bananas. He should be ok there.
It used to be said there would soon be only five kings in the world: spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, and Buffoons. Charles is the King of Buffoons. There will always be buffoons, right up until the extinction of our species, which will no doubt be the result of some lunacy caused by a group of left wing buffoons like Charles and company.
Mod says, [MEP is a Member (Elected ???) of Parliment ? .mod]
MEP is a Member of European Parliament, which is an elected position in the European Union, with elections being held in each member country for the MEPs.
The European Commission is not elected, and tells the European Union’s parliament what it will “vote” on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
I think Monckton is correct on his musing to ditch the Monarchy, although using a scientific site is a strange choice. Still, as long as all unelected positions like Lords, Dukes, Barons and the rest of the silly crew are ditched as well.
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/about.html
If you haven’t,,,,,, read it entirely,,,, and think of how CO2 fits in.
What do you think they mean with respect to core function #5 on the about page, “knowledge management”? /sarc
I do believe this is on topic……
There is nothing more dangerous than a clueless politician with a guilty conscience (ie: Prince Charles); there is not enough of your money they can spend to assuage their guilt.
The very best advertisment for a Republic that I can think of is this Prince …
Gareth Phillips says:
June 1, 2014 at 2:11 pm
I think Monckton is correct on his musing to ditch the Monarchy, although using a scientific site is a strange choice. Still, as long as all unelected positions like Lords, Dukes, Barons and the rest of the silly crew are ditched as well.
That’s the hypocrisy of Monckton in full bloom. On the one hand, he trashes the monarchy as having no place in a democracy – even though the role is entirely bully pulpit. Then in the next breath he fights tooth and nail for the right to be called Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, a title that is a legacy of …….. the monarchy.
Monckton of Brenchley says: June 1, 2014 at 1:18 am
Yet it is no fairer to say Khayyam was not a Muslim than it is to say that Galileo, for instance, was not a Catholic.
____________________________
We have the same situation in all cases.
Galileo produced original science despite the Catholic Church, not because of it.
Khayyam produced original mathematics despite the Muslim Church, not because of it.
Islam’s Golden Age (if there ever was such a thing) came despite the Muslim Church, not because of it.
The Ahmadiyyas have produced a peaceful creed despite the Muslim Church, not because of it.
Some children avoid being molested despite the Catholic Church, not because of it.
In all cases, the Church is an anchor on advancement, not an engine of advancement.
R
Sparks, insects don’t live long, and climate cooling will effect some more than other. They don’t evolve as such, but move to a better environment within their niche. Bees don’t really like cold weather because of the lack of pollen, and blow flies disappear in winter. It’s the bees we must worry about, because honey and pollen are replaced by sugar for active bees during winter months.
Lord Monckton, actually I don’t dislike Prince Charles and Camilla. He was talking to his plants years ago and so do I, and try to keep harmful chemicals from overuse as fertilizers. This last faux par is silly, and I am sure the UK government doesn’t go along with it. Or they may? I suppose it is an idealistic message and quite honestly other than alarmists it will fall on deaf ears.Sustainability yes, and cutting pollution, yes, but I think he was unwise to event mention climate change in the manner he has. Score one for the IPCC, but all he has done is spark the debate and make skeptics more resolute to overcome the twits who promote nil science that proclaims global temperature rises if we cut down CO2 levels will save the planet.
Can some tell me what this guy’s ( Charles’s) CO2 foot print is on a daily basis?., Let alone when he is of to Romania for a “visit” on a personal jet what a *******g hypocrite!
…his will is not his own;
For he himself is subject to his birth;
He may not, as unvalued persons do,
Carve for himself; for on his choice depends
The safety and the health of the whole state.
Laertes
It was noted earlier in the comments that Charles behaves in a manner similar to that of his great uncle Edward VIII who abdicated the crown to marry the twice divorced Wallis Simpson.
Readers may not be familiar with Christopher’s grandfather, Walter Moncton 1st Viscount of Brenchley, who played a key role as Edward VIII’s advisor in the abdication crisis of 1936.
George V said of his son Edward VIII “after I am dead the boy will ruin himself in 12 months”
Monckton “To sneer at the Muslims for having contributed nothing but violence to civilization is to distort and disfigure the history of astronomy, of mathematics, of art, of architecture, of philosophy, of poetry.”
Omar Khayyam was definitely not a Muslim. It seems that Monckton is incapable of deducing anything from reading his poetry. Nor is he aware of the death penalty under Islamic Sharia law for apostasy, and thus people pretending to be Muslims when they are not, a practice that continues till today in Islamic countries, or the Muslim penchant for usurping and claiming non-Muslims to be Muslims.
The great Persian physician, Al-Razi for example, wrote three books on religion: The Prophet’s Fraudulent Tricks, The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets, and On the Refutation of Revealed Religions, in which he said, among other things, “As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of ‘absurd and inconsistent fables,’ which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much-vaunted ‘eloquence’ are far from being faultless.” But Al-Razi has always been claimed by Muslims to be a Muslim.
The Muslim “Golden Age” flowered with their conquests when they conquered and destroyed the flourishing civilisations of Greece, Persia, Egypt and India. When their conquests faltered so did their “Golden Age”.
I think Edward VIII was also trying to make comments about poor people and unemployment reform that the government of the day reckoned he was overstepping his constitutional role and making political comments to gain popular appeal with the masses. Mrs Simpson was a choice and quite honestly she was not liked in UK, not only by the gentry and nobility but also by the Royal Family. A difficult woman whose own interests and questionable morality were sometimes over exaggerated, but she was not exactly the type the British would accept. As one believes that the present monarch is very much admired and Charles represented her at the last Commonwealth of Nations meeting. And of course the present Prince William and Katherine are very much liked. Although my son and I have a debate about young Prince George. All in gud fun mind you, “He’s going to be a grumpy king one day” my son speculates. ” Well we won’t be alive to see that, I think he is lovely!” Organic and sustainable agriculture is every country’s aim, but thank you very much, it should not be overseen by unelected foreigners.
The only problem with the various organic Edens which Prince Charles has willed into existence in his country by sheer ecological purity of mind is that it doesn’t make headlines in the Guardian when the Edens become infested with foreign and domestic pathogens, diseases, and pests and are treated chemically to bring them back under control.
It does make the news occasionally but you have to search for it. Try Eden’s 775,000 Cockroaches.
What about the Badgers?
Matt:
Your post at May 31, 2014 at 8:21 pm begins saying
The “nonsense” has been posted by you. Our monarch wears the Crown and Reigns over the United Kingdom.
The reality of Royal Power and the UK Constitution were discussed in a previous WUWT thread. People interested in reality can find the start of that discussion here.
Richard
Prince Charles has always wished to appear relevant and to make the monarchy relevant. I think this started out as such but he’s got carried away with himself on this issue.
I think Charles poses a great threat to the monarchy. His comments as to wishing to be the “defender of faith” rather than the “defender of the Faith” is warning enough. This might sound right-on, but could result in a separation of Church and State, and if he keeps shooting his mouth off like he has done then the monarchy might go as part of that process.
ralfellis says:
Galileo produced original science despite the Catholic Church, not because of it.
Oh no, not another fallacy. Galileo only argued that observation trumped dogma! His observations of the moons of Jupiter showed that not all things revolved around the Earth adding weight to the Copernicus view of the solar system – a view commonly held by many in the Church, remember Copernicus himself was ordained in Holy Orders. Galileo got into trouble because he wrote several pieces that were insulting to the Pope at the time simply because the Pope refused to acknowledge observation over dogma in this case; and by extension to all others. The whole thing has been mythified, packaged up and sold to the gullible as something else – you seemed to have fallen for it. What is interesting today, is that institutions such as the Royal Society and UN proclaim the superiority of dogma over observation and are applauded for it.
As for your cheap, and glib reference to child abuse would suggest that you care more for making a point than holding the Church to account. BTW the UN has a very, very bad record on sexual abuse also.
Richard says: June 1, 2014 at 11:16 pm
The Muslim “Golden Age” flowered with their conquests when they conquered and destroyed the flourishing civilisations of Greece, Persia, Egypt and India. When their conquests faltered so did their “Golden Age”.
_______________________________
Well said, Richard. Monckton has no idea about the subject, and has been busy on Wiki trying to play catch-up. But he still has no idea. But what really sticks in my gullet is his abject hypocrisy.
Monckton feels himself free to criticise a prince and future king of Britain – and has publicly called for his resignation or abdication – simply because the prince has some rather naive views about science and the environment. Yet Monckton has de-facto refused to make a similar condemnation regarding the Koran’s verses that call for parents to murder their disobedient children (or if they change their religion). Now that is real hypocrisy.
Or is this dhimmitude? (look it up).
.
.
cd says: June 2, 2014 at 3:58 am
Oh no, not another fallacy. Galileo only argued that observation trumped dogma!
______________________________
No. Galileo’s primary crime was demonstrating that the Catholic Church was wrong, and thus not infallible in its pronouncements. In his abjuration he was forced to recant by saying:
Quote:
“With sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest my aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church. “
The main problem was the things he said that were “contrary to the Holy Church”. And this is why science can never flourish under the rule of ignorant Catholic or Islamic Churches.
And as an aside, the Heliocentric arrangement of the Solar System had been known long before Galileo’s observations. But it had been suppressed by Catholic ignorance.
One of the most popular symbols of the Roman world was Sol Invictus (the Sun) holding a globe (the Earth) is his (gravitational) grasp. And we know that this globe was the Earth, because in mosaics it is colored blue with some green. Clearly, Galileo was simply proving what had been known for centuries – that the smaller Earth revolved around the more important Sun – but this had been suppressed by the ignorance of the Catholic Church.
Coins of Sol Invictus, holding the Earth.
http://www258.pair.com/denarius/images/erf_ri3306.jpg
http://academic.sun.ac.za/antieke/coins/muntwerf/deisolkg.jpg
http://theancientsacredmysteries.com/con1r.jpg
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/sol_pics/gordian_iii_005rf.jpg
R