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
May 31, 2014 8:23 am

Rhys Jaggar says:
May 31, 2014 at 7:49 am What have you been dong with your life? The views you express in this comment are entirely wrong. Try reading Smith or Hayek rather than Marx.

Chip Javert
May 31, 2014 8:25 am

Well, as a colonist, I’m not too impressed with the product of so-called royal inbreeding.
I thought these guys existed primarily for the benefit of American tourists…and the money they spend.

ralfellis
May 31, 2014 8:26 am

Monckton of Brenchley says: May 31, 2014 at 8:02 am
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”.
__________________________
Quite true, Mr Monckton. But do remember that your Jesus was a Communist, as is made oerfectly plain in Acts 4:32-35. There was no personal possessions, and all property was surrendered to the common purse. So why do you preach against the head of your creed? Do you place yourself above and beyond that esteemed leader?
R

Paulr
May 31, 2014 8:27 am

I would love to be able to place my faith in Monckton or anyone who speaks sense like he does, They’re all players though in this horrible pantomime. We are headed in an irreversible course with disaster and there is no one at the helm. Only people shouting.

Andrew
May 31, 2014 8:29 am

Another great post from Lord M.
Every time Charlie pronounces on a subject he looks like an idiot. Either he says something blindingly obvious (Putin = Hitler) or a piece of climate bandwaggonry or some such idiocy.
Everyone knows this and treats HRH’s pronouncements accordingly. So (imo) any campaign Charlie supports is tainted by his views. Why worry?
btw, if (as someone suggested above) Her Majesty were to outlive Charles, Prince Andrew would become the heir apparent, and if he became Andy I the new heir would be Princess Beatrice. All that grooming of Prince Willy would come to nothing.

John Mackenzie
May 31, 2014 8:33 am

Is there a chance that this article can be sent to the Queen?

Philip Peake
May 31, 2014 8:38 am

One thing to remember is that the UK Monarchy is not totally free do do as they wish.
They have “minders” who’s job it is to guide them through the minefield which is domestic and international politics.
The Queen has a reputation for doing her own research, and being as aware as her minders, and in some cases even better informed. For what will soon be the longest reigning monarch in English history, she has made remarkably few errors. Imagine if your life were lived under the public microscope, how would you have fared?
But my point is that it is odd that Charles as he (in theory at least) gets closer to becoming King, is making more and more outrageous statements. The conspiracy theorist within me makes me wonder if this is not being manipulated.
The Queen can nominate her successor (with agreement by the government), and there is (as I dimly remember my history) precedent for skipping the eldest lineal descendent. That, of course, has been shaken up already by changing the rules to allow females to claim the role.
I think there are very few people that don’t consider William a much better candidate, including the Queen.
My own suspicions are that once she has passed the magic date making her the longest reigning English monarch ever, she will consider retirement and having at least a few years of her own. That would also allow her to nominate her successor rather than leaving it to the eldest descendent, and the possibility of the monarchy coming to an abrupt end shortly after that.
The Queen, whatever anyone may perceive her faults to be, cannot be considered unintelligent, and unable to make uncomfortable decisions.

May 31, 2014 8:45 am

Another Enviro-Aristocrat.

Harry Passfield
May 31, 2014 9:03 am

“Monckton of Arabia…the camel’s the one on the right.” and the one with the hump is on the left. And I’m with you, Chris! HRH really needs to dump Porrit and get better advisors – YOU!!

Harry Passfield
May 31, 2014 9:08 am

PS: Lord M: Do you think that YOU could prevail on Anthony to do something for we Tablet users? Finger-scrolling though 160 comments to get to the point where I can leave a comment is a pain – as is the scroll back to the top (OK, I know I could just refresh for that, but not everyone does. Thanks.

G P Hanner
May 31, 2014 9:12 am

Looks like the Prince of Wales is following in his Uncle David’s footsteps.

May 31, 2014 9:27 am

Lord Monckton says that the UK is still a free country. From ‘Samizdata’:

Imagine telling somebody twenty years ago that by 2007, it would be illegal to smoke in a pub or bus shelter, or your own vehicle, or that there would be £80 fines for dropping cigarette butts, or that the words “tequila slammer” would be illegal, or the government would mandate what angle a drinker’s head in an advertisement may be tipped at, or that it would be illegal to criticise religions, or homosexuality, or rewire your own house, or that having sex after a few drinks would be classed as rape, or that the State would be confiscating children for being overweight. Imagine telling them the government would be contemplating ration cards for fuel and even foods, that every citizen would be required to carry an ID card filled with private information which could be withdrawn at the state’s whim. They’d have thought you a paranoid loon.

Seems that the UK is about 25% free. And they’re working on that last part.

Jimbo
May 31, 2014 9:29 am

Because Charles was born with a diamond studded, 24 carat gold spoon in his mouth, he feels the need to justify his highly privileged position. There must be mountains of guilt inside him but it’s not his fault. He should simply enjoy the fruits of his ancestors killings and domination and stop whining. Capitalism has delivered the conveniences to his doorstep. Nice fossil fueled carS, climate control, AIR travel, GAS central heating, and so on.

May 31, 2014 9:39 am

Harry Passfield wins the prize for the neatest and funniest comment.
Philip Peake thoughtfully suggests that perhaps Her Majesty, once she has outlasted her namesake on the Throne, might retire and nominate her successor. However, I suspect that the Act of Succession would have to be repealed first.
There is actually some danger that, if Prince Charles carries on as he does, Parliament will lose patience with him and will change or suspend the Act to allow the succession to skip a generation on this occasion. Prince William, a well-planted and much-admired worker for various charitable causes (as, to be fair, is Prince Charles) would then inherit, and would be wildly popular. For one thing, he is as discreet as his father is garrulous.
Ministers are already exasperated by the endless long and agonized letters written to them by Prince Charles telling them how to do their jobs, always well-meaningly but often on the basis of irritatingly incomplete information or understanding. His virtue is that he is one who cares: his vice is that he lets his heart rule his head even on those occasions when it would be better the other way about.
More seriously, some Ministers – no names, no pack-drill – are as unconvinced as I am that the monarchy, which they admire at least as much as I do and which they fervently wish to maintain, might not survive Prince Charles as King. The Queen has been influential precisely by appearing to be uninfluential, while giving sound and well-measured advice to her Prime Ministers during their weekly audiences (which Margaret Thatcher hated, habitually referring to Her Majesty as “that woman”).
There is a real and now widespread concern among the classe politique in Britain that allowing the Prince to succeed to the Throne could, as I suggested in the opening sentence of the head posting, bring the thousand-year monarchy to an untimely end.
There is a small and – thanks to the Queen’s exemplary devotion to her duties and to her subjects – rapidly dwindling movement (on the Left, inevitably, where every bad idea finds a natural home) to do away with the monarchy lock, stock and scepter. The danger seen by some Ministers is that Prince Charles as King might one day to decide to adopt a cause not supported by the hard Left, which might then turn on him and scrap the monarchy as it earlier petulantly scrapped the admittedly anachronistic right of hereditary members of the House to sit and vote.
At present, my estimate is that there is a 50:50 chance that ministers at some stage between now and the Prince’s accession to the Throne will change the law to prevent that potentially disastrous outcome. The Prince is now on notice that if he does not fall utterly and immediately silent on all matters of partisan politics he will be unceremoniously cut out of the Royal succession to prevent any further damage to the wholehearted consent. on all but the hard-Left fringe of the House, upon which the continued survival of the monarchy rests.
To me, what is fascinating about the Prince’s reckless and persisting abandonment of the constitutional principle of holy silence on all matters of politics is that the subject on which he is prepared to forfeit the Throne is – of all things – climate change. One would think that he would have taken a great deal of care to choose his casus belli more carefully. It may be that his spin-meisters will see the head posting, and perhaps they may even read down this far to see what is being said about it. If so, they may care to get a copy of the RSS satellite data for the past 26 years (very nearly all the satellite record), and ask the statistician of their choice to determine whether that record shows any statistically significant global warming. If the answer is No, would one of them pluck up the courage to tell the Prince before it is altogether too late?
The Prince, unlike Margaret Thatcher, does not like to be gainsaid or argued with, so he will resent and punish anyone who tells him some home truths about his frankly naive belief in the New Superstition. But whoever plucks up the guts to ensure that he is for the first time briefed on both sides of the argument rather than the side he wants to hear may have done more than make him better informed: he or she may have saved the monarchy.

Mac the Knife
May 31, 2014 9:41 am

This may be a more appropriate ‘avatar’ for prince charles:
http://www.skcc.us/

V. Uil
May 31, 2014 9:46 am

Prince Charles, soon to be King Charles, labours under a very challenging handicap. He is stupid. And having being reared within the hothouse of British Royalty he simply has no understanding of how the world actually works.
Prince Charles (a.k.a. The Royal Wingnut because of his large ears and cranky beliefs) is a danger to society because he knows not that he knows not.

AlecM
May 31, 2014 9:46 am

Lord Monckton: when you are incarcerated in the Bloody Tower, can I visit you so as to encourage?

Jimbo
May 31, 2014 9:46 am

Paul Homewood says:
May 31, 2014 at 3:42 am
Prince Charles is on holiday in Romania at a mansion he owns this week.
Guess how he got there?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/prince-charles-holidaying-in-romania-travels-by-private-plane/

Thanks Paul, I wasn’t aware that aside from his 4 homes in England, Scotland and Wales he has one in Romania. In fact I just found out it’s more than one. Yet the video I posted above Charles in a comment about global warming says:

Prince Charles
“We are making it cool to use less stuff”

The lesson is clear. What Prince Charles means is less stuff for YOU, and more stuff for HIM. And this man attacks capitalism. Sheesh!!
It’s cool to have lots, then tell others it’s really cool to have NOTHING. LOL. ROFLMAO.
http://duchyofcornwall.org/site-map.html
Poundbury
Dartmoor & Princetown
Hereford
Isles of Scilly
Truro
Newquay
Highgrove
Home Farm
London
Ancient Monuments
Water & Woodlands
Holiday Cottages
Duchy of Cornwall Nursery
Duchy of Cornwall properties
http://www.duchyofcornwallholidaycottages.co.uk/browse-properties/

Philip Arlington
May 31, 2014 10:07 am

I’m a climate realist and I voted UKIP, but I am also a royalist.
Calling the Prince of Wales a totalitarian is hysterical nonsense which would make a climate alarmist blush, In reality he is a very well meaning but not very bright man who is vulnerable to being misled by the fashionable ideas of the day, like most people. As for his lifestyle and the business activities of the Duchy of Cornwall (over which he is far from exercising complete control) they are more in the tradition of ruralist romantic Toryism (the most conservative strand of British poltiics) than anything else, as are his attempts to support traditional architecture. His lifestyle may be lavish by most standards, but given his position in life it is restrained, and you can’t judge anyone fairly without taking their personal cirxumstances into account.
Unfortunately most Americans, and many other people too, lack the background and contextual knowledge to understand where a prince is coming from.

AlecM
May 31, 2014 10:15 am

[snip – I’m getting tired of your Hitler rants – cut it out or beat it – Anthony]

Stephen Richards
May 31, 2014 10:28 am

One of the problem of centuries of inbreeding is that you end up with loonies.

AlecM
May 31, 2014 10:33 am

An interesting thread with echoes of British and Continental European History going back 1300 years. Much of this would probably go over the head of our American cousins.

May 31, 2014 10:58 am

I agree with much of what Mr Arlington said, but the Prince’s remarks were indeed totalitarian in their thrust but, as I carefully pointed out in the head posting, it was not clear whether he knew he had in effect become an advocate for enviro-totalitarianism.
I have recently been studying the rise of the totalitarians in Russia, China, and Germany. Particularly in the last, it was not only the failure of the vast majority to speak out against what was happening that allowed the dictatorship to become established almost unopposed, but the extraordinary number of statements by well-meaning people to the effect that the few who did speak out against the emerging tyranny were unduly alarmist, or even mad.
I have read the draft treaty of Copenhagen and the further attempt at introducing enviro-totalitarianism that was tried at Durban. I do not know what happened at Doha because the drafts were not made publicly available at the time (or since, as far as I know). But it is all too clear that the next major attempt at bullying or badgering the nations of the world to sign up to a global tyranny will be in Paris (though there are also some indications an attempt this December to bring the thing forward by a year in the hope of catching us all off our guard, a technique the tyrannical class in Germany often used).
Mr Arlington should not underestimate the determination of those behind this scam to continue profiting by it regardless of the fact that there is no scientific and still less economic basis for taking any action at all. Prince Charles’ interventions, whether or not he is conscious of the malevolent ambitions of those who draft them for him, are calculated to favor the establishment of just such a tyranny as is described in detail in the Copenhagen and Durban documents.
A Melbourne radio station, thinking – as Mr Arlington does – that I had overstated the case at Copenhagen, obtained a copy of the draft treaty and consulted Queen’s Counsel specializing in constitutional law. The barrister, on reading the draft, was horrified and commended me for having brought it to the public attention, though he criticized me for having understated the extent to which the treaty, if it had passed, would have brought democracy, accountability, liberty and prosperity to an end worldwide.
My I suggest that Mr Arlington reads the Copenhagen and Durban drafts, looks at my commentaries on both, reads the Prince’s speeches on the subject, and then decides whether I have gone too far in my remarks? On balance, my instinct – right or wrong – is not to repeat the mistakes of those who by their silence allowed the three great totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th century to become established all but unopposed.

Chuck Nolan
May 31, 2014 11:23 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 31, 2014 at 9:39 am
…”More seriously, some Ministers – no names, no pack-drill – are as unconvinced as I am that the monarchy, which they admire at least as much as I do and which they fervently wish to maintain, might not survive Prince Charles as King.”
——————————————
Christopher, my guess is soon after he takes the throne those wishing to have their god allah be the only ruler would torch the country side and all royal property, kill whatever infidels and demand he step down and end the monarch, forever.
Naturally he would do just that, capitulate before the battle began. More’s the pity
imho “Long live the queen”
cn

Alba
May 31, 2014 11:47 am

Just as well this website is about science. The history on it is sadly misinformed.
For the attention of Lord Monckton, the last King of England (William III) died in 1702. The last Queen of England (Anne) died in 1714. It is no more valid today to talk about a King of England than to talk about a King of Mercia, or a King of Northumbria or a King of Dalriada.
William Abbot says,
‘the fanaticism of James II’
William, you’ve fallen for the propaganda put out by the historians who supported the usurpation of the monarchy by William of Orange. The reality is that King James II of England (and VII of Scotland) was somebody who believed in religious tolerance. However, the Anglicans could not abide with the idea of tolerating either Catholics or Nonconformists and so opposed his plans. The so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 set back the cause of religious toleration by over a hundred years. It wasn’t until 1870 that Catholics could attend universities in the UK and there is still a ban on Catholics becoming the monarch of the UK.
Ralfellis says,
‘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.’
I don’t know where ralfellis gets his idea that the Princes of Orange destroyed the Catholic Church. Where is this supposed to have taken place? The somewhat unfamiliar reality is that the Pope of the time actually supported William of Orange’s takeover of the English and Scottish monarchy. As to evidence that ‘the Catholic Church has been plotting the downfall of the northern European monarchs ever since,’ I suspect that that is largely in ralfellis’s mind.

1 5 6 7 8 9 13