Who will rid us of this totalitarian Prince?

clip_image002By 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.

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010 clip_image012 clip_image014

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.

clip_image016

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.

clip_image018

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
316 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ferdberple
May 31, 2014 5:57 am

They have no appreciation what the deindustrialization of North America
============
take them for a trip through Detroit

ralfellis
May 31, 2014 5:59 am

.
Prince Charles is indeed an out-of-touch Greenie fool, who needs to spend there years working in a coal mine to get back in touch with reality.
However, there is a sub-plot to the Lord’s ramblings that should be made clear. Prince Charles is the heir to the Princes of Orange, who ruled England and northern Europe in the 17th century. And it was the Princes of Orange who destroyed the Lord’s beloved Catholic Church (and defeated some of our Catholic kings).
The Catholic Church has been plotting the downfall of the northern European monarchs ever since.
R

May 31, 2014 6:10 am

Oh the irony! Here is the UK Pledge of Allegiance, which Monckton as a member of the House of Lords, has sworn to uphold:
“I, [name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors
according to law.”
and here is the UKIP policy on the monarchy:
“The UK Independence Party, as its chieftain explains, is a firm supporter of Constitutional Monarchy”
although
“According to Farage, the party, in particular, believes that The Crown should scrupulously avoid at all times giving or appearing to give overt support to partisan and controversial political policies. ”
Meanwhile Monckton is again speaking out of both sides of his mouth. The reference “Who will rid us of this of this totalitarian prince?” is a clear harking to “”Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” said to be the words of King Henry II which were taken to mean that he wished the Archibishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Becket, to be assassinated (which is what happened).
Is Monckton beseeching someone to prevent Charles from acceding to the throne by fair means or foul? Inquiring minds would like to know.
It really takes the biscuit for Monckton to be complaining about the lack of democratic accountability of the British Monarchy that he has sworn to uphold.
REPLY: John, your comment is forcing an offtopic discussion, and I ask that you dial your own rhetoric back a bit.
Consider this. Suppose you are a member of a club, that has a set of bylaws, and this club gets a leader that decides to start taking the club 180 degrees from where you thought it was when you joined. Are you obligated to blindly follow his leader, or are you allowed to dissent? In the United States, children were taught to say the “Pledge of Allegiance” in schools, yet those same children have the right of dissent under free speech. Some of those same children who recited the pledge of allegiance are today speaking out against the current resident of the White House, the incompetence of the Congress, and the bureaucracy. Does that make them speak out of both sides of their mouth? I think not. You can love your country and its people but hate the Monarchy and/or your elected leaders. History is rife with such examples.
-Anthony

May 31, 2014 6:38 am

I refer “John A” to my answer at 5.32 am supra. And, in response to Ralf Ellis, as a Catholic and a Scot I sometimes wonder how much merrier England might have been if Bonnie Prince Charlie had not dithered at Derby. But UKIP’s policy is also my policy: God Save Her Majesty and her heirs and successors, provided that they keep themselves above politics and do not endanger their position by – for instance – describing those of us who have legitimate scientific doubts about the magnitude of Man’s influence on climate as “headless chickens”.

Julian Williams in Wales
May 31, 2014 6:41 am

It is very sad that this well meaning man is so stupid. I find his stupidity irritating, but most people simply switch off when they don’t agree with him.
I think your article is interesting in it analysis of the new politics. The centre ground seems to have been taken over by a sort of paternalistic totalitarian sentiment. The prince in many ways is a victim/spokesperson of this new political elite who talk of consensus but are extremely doctrinaire and blinkered in their outlook.
I used to support the fringe parties, left and right, because they seemed to rebel with passion to change the world and respond to peoples needs, but recently have found that I find these fringe elements even more frightening than the paternalistic totalitarian centre. UKIP being an example of a new rabble mentality that is fuelled by anger and resentment that is becoming very aggressive and blinkered (try arguing against them about anything and they will be spitting and foaming within minutes, they are anti windmill and EU, but I do not want to share my time in their company)
Politics in the modern world is very depressing – what happened to the age of enlightenment?

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 31, 2014 6:41 am

John A says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:10 am

“According to Farage, the party, in particular, believes that The Crown should scrupulously avoid at all times giving or appearing to give overt support to partisan and controversial political policies. ”
It really takes the biscuit for Monckton to be complaining about the lack of democratic accountability of the British Monarchy that he has sworn to uphold.

Odd those two quotes from your own pen above. See, one of them actually points out that Charles IS not only “poking his nose into partisan politics, but is lying and using falsified “science” to do that! The second? Can you not read sarchasm? Or is that a whole too large for a liberal/socialist/democrat/warmist to span?
By the way, those energy policies that you and Charles so fervently favor? That were directly responsible for the early deaths last winter of 24,000 citizens of the land Charles was to protect. And YOU are accountable for those murders as well. But YOU defend those policies.
Now, how do YOU justify THEIR deaths? How does this “future king” face his people and say, “Yes, I killed 24,000 last winter; and want to kill more of you this coming winter.” Should we arrest YOU for murder? (Now, am I being sarcastic, or do I want you in prison for murder?)

hunter
May 31, 2014 6:47 am

Monckton of Brenchley,
Thank you for your informative and well reasoned response above ( Monckton of Brenchley
May 31, 2014 at 5:32 am).
I stand persuaded.
Clearly if the Prince of Wales is choosing to play in the game, then he gets to be treated as a player.
And the homeopathic and plant whispering facets are very illuminating, in a darkly creepy sort of way.
Respectfully yours,
etc.

Patrick
May 31, 2014 6:47 am

“Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:38 am”
Good for you Chris for not using the “T” word in this reply in response to John A.

Patrick
May 31, 2014 6:52 am

“RACookPE1978 says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:41 am”
John A is unlikely able to influence Govn’t energy policy with a stupid comment beyond voting. Prince Charles can, and has, over the years he’s been talking to plants! Charlie and Chris do not live in the real world!

ferdberple
May 31, 2014 6:53 am

God Save Her Majesty and her heirs and successors, provided that they keep themselves above politics and do not endanger their position
===========
in a democracy, the people have the right to remove politicians. when the royal family engage in issues that are seen as a political debate, they become part of the democratic process and the people have the right to remove them.
fair and square. if the royal family engage in politics the people have the right to remove them. it is the founding principle of a democracy.
the problem for Charles is that he is too dim to understand this. He lives a live of luxury, while at the same time proposing that the rest of us live a life that he himself would never live.
Royal Hypocrite. Give up your houses and properties and get a job. Go live on the same pension as the rest of Britain. Then tell us how we should live. Your lifestyle is not sustainable.

Coach Springer
May 31, 2014 6:57 am

Saving The Planet necessarily self selects for one of three self-important character types: 1) jackasses, 2) tyrants and 3) both. Al Gore, Michael Mann and Prince Charles are type 3s.

Non Nomen
May 31, 2014 7:03 am

Prince C. certainly has a green thumb and occasionally talks to his plants and vegetables, so it is said. He shoud better talk to his greens or, better still, put his thumb in his mouth and be quiet outright.

May 31, 2014 7:03 am

“Patrick” kindly congratulates me for not calling “John A” a troll. Of course I did not call it a troll, because its comment, though I disagreed with it, was on topic and was not a misrepresentation of what I had said, and was almost civil. In one respect it was inaccurate, though: I did not take the Oath of Allegiance in the House of Lords because by the time I inherited the title from my late beloved father the right of hereditary members of the House to sit and vote had been taken away. I had, however, taken the Oath many years previously on being sworn in as the youngest Deputy Lieutenant of Greater London.

May 31, 2014 7:13 am

[snip – off topic- mod]

Non Nomen
May 31, 2014 7:17 am

Monckton of Brenchley
May 31, 2014 at 6:38 am
“… God Save Her Majesty and her heirs and successors, provided that they keep themselves above politics and do not endanger their position by – for instance – describing those of us who have legitimate scientific doubts about the magnitude of Man’s influence on climate as “headless chickens”.”
___________________
Intense singing of le „Ҫa ira“ instead of “God help save the Queen” might make him think about what might happen…
But they weren’t chickens then.

May 31, 2014 7:18 am

Monkton says
“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.”
This is really the goal of the Obama administration. Obama himself is really little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy for the policies of his science Czar John Holdren
Here is a piece from the Examiner blog in 2009
July 16, 2009
John P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama’s ‘Science Czar.”
Holdren’s official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
The longtime Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Holdren is no stranger to controversy.
Holdren’s radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”
That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”
Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries.
“De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” ”
In the same year I posted the following on my site
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“OBAMA’S ROADMAP TO THE CORPORATE SOCIALIST STATE
The Boxer – Kerry and Waxman – Markey bills represent the greatest threat that America’s constitutional democracy has ever faced.
The almost non -existent Anthropogenic (CO2 caused) Global Warming has been used as a pretext to try to grab control of all economic activity in the country because congress will decide the price of all energy via the distribution of carbon credits to whomever contributes most to their campaign funds. Energy production will be diverted to so called “green ” sources which are hopelessly uneconomic unless heavily subsidized.
If these bills pass, all private real estate will essentially cease to exist because Obama’s climate police will decide the appraisal value of all real estate and thus control the sales price of everyone’s home. Any alterations or improvements will have to be approved by government inspectors.
A vast bureaucracy will be created to run this virtual totalitarian police state run for the benefit of the congress and whichever corporations or special interests pay them the most.
Since my first post in January 2009 , solar activity has continued to be virtually non-existent making it more and more likely that the earth is entering a 20 – 30 year cool spell during which crop production would be seriously reduced at a time of increasing population. Obama’s policies of CO2 reduction would exacerbate this problem and worsen the worldwide food shortages which might well occur if the cooling actually develops.
The main stream media are aiding and abetting this coup-in some cases , e.g. NBC, because they are controlled by a company – General Electric which has spent millions on lobbying in order to benefit from the bill or because of the political (Socialist – world government ) agenda of its leaders e.g . BBC.
It is essential that the grass roots of working middle America become informed about this looming threat and come together to speak out and stop this takeover by a kleptocratic and self appointed elite who plan to be the rulers of this Corporate Socialist state .”
Fortunately because of the separation of powers in the US constitution these pernicious bills didn’t pass. However in an unconstitutional power grab the Holdren – Obama agenda is now being forced through by the executive branch via the EPA regulation of GHGs.
Obama realizes that the government doesn’t need to own all the means of production to create a Stalinesque economy. If you can regulate the price and type of energy and control the “energy efficiency ” of all economic activity as envisaged in Waxman Markey you have established a Marxist – Socialist- or with the eager cooperation of the campaign contributing industries a Corporate – Socialist state.

Big Don
May 31, 2014 7:19 am

As a yank, I must admit I never got this constitutional monarchy thing. I also must admit I haven’t really tried. One thing I do get is that I personally will never recognize any claims from any royal of any nation of any form of sovereignty over me. This goes for elected officials of governments other than my own as well.

May 31, 2014 7:33 am

Late to the party – as always – I find that this thread has become altogether too serious.
So I’ll offer an old grammatical tweaser. Punctuate the following sentence:
Charles the Third walked and talked half a century after his brain was cut off.

G. Karst
May 31, 2014 7:40 am

Ironically, if the green socialist parties ever get full control, the first social strata to be eliminated will be archaic royal vestiges. I hope he enjoys living in a energy impoverished hovel. GK

Rhys Jaggar
May 31, 2014 7:49 am

My Lord
I have to say that if you go and read the Spectator and the Telegraph blog comments, you will find a remarkable concentration of fascist totalitarians expressing their views. They are unified by a hatred of anything other than absolutely free market capitalism under all situations, an absolute blame for their plight on the unemployed (who more often than not are blameless victims of useless manager/capitalists), an absolute belief that the only education system of any worth is the one that happened to work for them and an absolute belief that those who belief in cooperation rather than conflict are intrinsically evil (since socialism, communism, social democracy, call it what you will, has at its heart the concept that cooperation is equally as valuable as competing, that working together to achieve an aim is just as likely to succeed as trying to beat the whole world on your own).
I have absolutely no time for climate change zealots, but to argue a case fairly, you must be equally as scathing about the fascists whose far-right views are so close to Hitler in terms of intolerance (merely leaving out the camps and the gas chambers) as to be intrinsically evil.

May 31, 2014 7:54 am

Anyone who would leave Diana for Cruella de… er, I mean Camilla, isn’t right in the head.

Jimmy Finley
May 31, 2014 7:54 am

Great essay, Lord Monckton. I think many do not understand the desire among many in academe and graduated from “top” universities, to participate in “true Marxism” – “oh it will be grand this time; we know how not to commit the mistakes of Russia and China, blah, blah.” These morons – incapable generally of doing real work – infiltrate every political, academic and governmental slot that is available – and then begin “white anting” the established order, eating it away from the inside out. Let’s give them a sound defeat, and eradicate the refuges that support them (for example, make government smaller, with a requirement to be effective or be cut, and get rid of the public sector unions, so that people can be fired as necessary, for starters).
Thanks for your good work. And the camel was a real looker.

May 31, 2014 7:54 am

“Big Don” has missed the point. It will not be elected overseas officials that he will be answering to willy-nilly: if the Treaty of Paris passes, it will be unelected bureaucrats in the new, all-powerful, irremovable, unaccountable institutions of global environmental and political governance that his own elected officials will be compelled by treaty, again willy-nilly, to obey. Get with the picture.

May 31, 2014 8:02 am

Mr Jagger seems to think that Hitler was Right-wing. His party, however, was the Socialist Workers’ Party. And he mistakes the amiable chaos of the market-place for a lack of co-operation, when in practice the market-place is the most efficient and inexpensive method of facilitating the co-operative allocation of resources by the beneficial influence of competition and of bargaining between those who have something to sell and those who want to buy something. All forms of socialist totalitarianism preach co-operation but in practice impose a single system from above and then misrepresent enforced compliance as willing co-operation: cf. Soetero”care”.

RACookPE1978
Editor
May 31, 2014 8:19 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 31, 2014 at 7:54 am

“Big Don” has missed the point. It will not be elected overseas officials that he will be answering to willy-nilly: if the Treaty of Paris passes, it will be unelected bureaucrats in the new, all-powerful, irremovable, unaccountable institutions of global environmental and political governance that his own elected officials will be compelled by treaty, again willy-nilly, to obey. Get with the picture.

And, thereby BECAUSE he (Charles) has served his purpose and HAS obeyed his masters in Brussels and China and the US (democratic administrations and bureaucrats), and BECAUSE Charles HAS BEEN a “good and faithful” servant of the bureaucracy who he admires, he (Charles) WILL BE kept in the very lap dogs of luxury to which he wishes to become permanent by those Brussels-sprout-bureaucrats who he empowers with his words.

1 4 5 6 7 8 13