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.
Mr Nolan is much less kind to the Muslims than is fair or charitable. Those of us who have studied the remarkable Muslim contributions to science from the golden age of Islamic scholarship, and also the brief flowering of relations that became almost harmonious between Muslims and Christians in southern Spain (begun by a Muslim conquest and ended by a Christian reconquest) would not choose hastily to dismiss Islam. The vast majority of the Islamic citizens of Britain are law-abiding, and many of them adhere to moral standards that an old-fashioned Christian like me cannot but admire.
There are a few fiery preachers, but our security services now monitor the mosques and also try to keep tabs on a small minority of schools that try to radicalize their pupils. It is, of course, startling that, though no Muslim country has the right to send its citizens to live permanently in Britain, the Muslim population has risen from 1 million in Margaret Thatcher’s time to more than 3 million today.
One might query whether so rapid a rate of net immigration is likely to lead to proper and harmonious assimilation of our new fellow-citizens. But there is always the possibility that our exceptionally tolerant nation will, as it has in the past, succeed in causing more of an alteration to the attitudes of the sons of Islam who come to our shores than they do to our way of life. We should certainly not make loose accusations that they will be likely to cause violence and murder on a large scale. I do hope the moderators will be kind enough to keep out that kind of hate speech from these threads if they possibly can.
Perhaps once cooling becomes clearly established during solar cycle 25 he may do the decent thing and abdicate without ever having taken the throne and pass the sceptre to William, once the Queen either retires or dies in the job. I think it will be the latter, and as men by and large do not live as long as woman, then Charles may not survive his mother and so the crown will pass straight to William.
A scaffold in Whitehall, is the tried and trusted way of dealing with despots, in the UK.
@ur momisugly Lord Monckton. I fear I must take issue with you on the point you raise about the Islamic immigrants. Thus far the most integrated have been the first generation immigrants, the more radicalised have been the second generation immigrants born in the UK, as a study showed after the London bus bombings.
How to better integrate a foreign religion that also thinks it should have political control of any and all countries (Islam) is a problem yet to find a solution. In the end, it may not be possible, since the Islamic population of the UK will become the majority population within 40 years (much of Europe too), the future may prove to be somewhat unsettled.
A foretaste of what is in store for much of Europe will be delivered from Russia who will be the first to sucombe to a majrity Muslim population in, with the Russian army being majority Muslim in a mere 8 years, the general population following 15 years later.
Perhaps Charles should take up a new religion…
Prince Chucky might feel different if he had to pay his own utility bills (with money he earned).
Hear, hear.
tabnumlock said; Prince Chucky might feel different if he had to pay his own utility bills (with money he earned).
No, I doubt it. ‘One’ doesn’t give up ‘ones’ upbringing or belief so readily. Certainly not on his current income, perhaps on a wage of less than the average wage, and living in a typical poorly insulated house. But I still wouldn’t put money on it. One is British, after all. Difficult to understand, unless ‘British’.
I think that will be a very short victory for them.
Civil society and free enterprise to the extent we enjoy them are what civilization is made of. To the extent they destroy those civil society and free enterprise is the extent to which the rise of barbarism spreads. They may gain the world for a day but they will soon find themselves destroyed too.
You cannot destroy the foundation of civilization and expect to live in a civilized world after the destruction.
A turbulent post about a turbulent Prince.
Funny guy is The Prince.
[…] demand no less than an end to capitalism as we know it […]
So we will be re-distributing his family lands at some point soon? The family, in its loosest sense, took all its current land holdings by very sharp swords and lots of dead land holders. Capitalism. I have more soldiers than you therefore your land is now mine.
[…] 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.[…]
Our idiot Prince will be more than happy to hand over his many family holdings to the UN? Even better, without all that income from land and property, he will head out and get himself a real job. Just like most of his subjects.
He will never be King, not least because his determination to dump the family assets will probably make him the first Prince in modern history to have a red hot poker shoved up his rectum by one of his own sons. A common practice amongst England’s royal houses in times past. See ‘Game of Thrones’.
I think if a CAGW political revolution is nigh, it should be just like the French revolution. Behead all elitists and aristocrats, Then also, behead the first two waves of wanna-be elitist/aristocratic replacements.
After all, the wealthy have HUGE carbon footprints.
I wonder how Charles would like that.
So Christopher, if I may call you that; where did you get yourself the horse of a different color (the one on the right ).?
Izzat as difficult to ride, as it looks ?
But it does suit you, and is a bit more elegant than floating down on a parachute !
g
PS: agree with the nyet on Charles, but not quite ready yet to chase the Barbary Apes off the Rock.
There is something to be said for tradition.
Mr Martin rightly points to the arithmetical consequences for the West’s population of its immoral policy of baby-butchering, a policy that traditional Muslims abhor with no less vigor than traditional Christians. In Russia, which he mentions, the Muslims are already half the population. In France, the same will soon be the case, if it is not the case already. Britain will indeed not be far behind. But the answer is not to blame the Muslims, who adhere to the ancient principle, enshrined for instance in the Hippocratic Oath, that killing innocent little children in the womb of their mothers is intrinsically and outrageously wrong. We should blame our lawmakers, who took the side of evil. The West will pay the price for their fatal decision in the most direct way possible – by the inexorable extinction of its own population, an extinction that is already well under way.
For out British friends, June 15th is coming up:
“””””…..Harry Passfield says:
May 31, 2014 at 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……”””””
Well Harry, if you choose a juvenile toy, over an ergonomically useful tool; then you deserve what you are stuck with.
Just imagine that you are bed ridden, and plumbed into the building, in order to breathe; and your brain no longer sends control signals to your tongue or throat, so you are now silent forever.
So how are you going to communicate with anybody; and do it in multiple languages since you are in a foreign speaking country, with your pad/ped/pid/pod/pud toys ??
And how would you draw a circuit schematic, or manipulate numbers, or graphs, with 12 different windows open, all at once, and do it through layers of grubby fingerprints.
You wanted it (I presume); soon we all will be stuck with it. At that point, I will just retire, and go fishing.
The problem with any form of Government is that there are people involved.
People have all the human failings we all experience.
In a democracy we elect the people who are given authority over us. We can elect different people latter but we are still to often stuck with what the previous elected people established. (Hence the rush to pass Obamacare and Peolosi’s you have to pass it to find out what’s in it.)
In a monarchy people are born with authority.
Now we have one more expert on Oil and CO2 – Desmond Tutu.
Check:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/faith/desmond-tutu-calls-oilsands-filth-urges-cooperation-on-environment-261378781.html
Here is a step by step process to end the madness. 1) cut off the royal family in the budget, 2) send property tax bills for the properties claimed by the family, and 3) turn all surrendered properties into museums for maintaining the tourist economy and traditions and keep the royal guards for looks and photo ops. Oh and hang the pictures of Charles in the mop rooms.
Alba says:
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?
________________________________
At the Battle of the Boyne, north of Dublin.
While it is rumoured that the Vatican may have assisted William of Orange, because the Church feared the designs and goals of Louis XIV more than William of Orange, it is also true that the Catholic Church never recovered from the establishment of the Reformation’s Age of Reason and the formation of the Royal Society. Never again would the Church be above criticism and beyond accountability, and never again would it be the font of all ‘scientific’ knowledge.
The situation then was similar to the ‘modern’ phenomena of kiddie abuse. You will note that the kiddie scandals have only erupted in the Protestant north. Does anyone think that the same events have not happened recently in the Catholic south?? This is the danger of an organisation that is above criticism, and can get away with anything.
And this was the religio-cultural battleground that the naive UKIP leadership suddenly had to deal with. They did not understand the religio-political realities of Scotland – the realities of Rangers vs Celtic – but they were rudely awoken at a very late date. We come back to the well-worn adage, that if you fail to understand history, then history is bound to repeat itself.
R
… but UKIP took its first elected seat in Scotland in the recent European elections.
Monckton of Brenchley says: May 31, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Mr Nolan is much less kind to the Muslims than is fair or charitable. Those of us who have studied the remarkable Muslim contributions to science from the golden age of Islamic scholarship, and also the brief flowering of relations that became almost harmonious between Muslims and Christians in southern Spain.
____________________________
Sorry, Monckton, but you obviously know nothing about Islam.
You need to look up the Covenant of Dhimmitude, for no Christian was free from servitude in Muslim lands, including Spain. That is what Dhimmitude means – serfdom or slavery. Someone who has no political control over their life or their nation (and has to pay the jizya tax to maintain Muslim control). Islam was always run like Sparta in Greece, and the Christians were the subjugated Helots. This is what Islam means – ‘subjugation’. Look it up.
And the Lord needs to look more critically at these so-called Muslim ‘inventions’. In reality, Islam never invented a darn thing, it was all Egyptian and Roman inventions rediscovered. The “1001 Islamic Inventions” tour of Europe had carpets, distillation, the ogave arch, the camera obscura and crankshafts as examples of Muslim inventions. Anyone with any knowledge of Rome will know these inventions predated Islam by a long margin. Geeezz, this tour did not even know that ‘camera obscura’ is Latin.
And regards preserving Greek science, again this was not done by Islam. For many centuries, Islam only represented a small 15% controlling elite in the East. All the donkey work and all the universities were run by the Armenian and Syriac Christians and the Babylonian Jews (Iraq was predominantly Jewish until 1947, with Judaism’s greatest seminary or university being at Pumbeditha, now called Fallujah).
Because the Arabs could not speak Greek, all of the Greek texts were translated and preserved by Syriac Christians, not Muslims. Muslim education then was the same as it is now – woeful. Middle Eastern universities give prizes based upon who your father is, rather than what you know – as anyone who has worked there will know all too well. Just don’t fly behind a local pilot…. And exactly the same happened in the 1st millennium. Thus all educational establishments of the East were always run by Syriac Christians, as the history of the region admits.
And the Christian education system in the East ran until quite recently. Most cities in Turkey and Syria were majority Christian until the 1920s – until the Armenian genocide of 1915 and the Greek genocide of 1927. Iraq was substantially Jewish until 1947.
I think the Lord needs to take off his rose-tinted propaganda glasses, and read a little real history. It is a truism that the pulpit does not broadcast real history.
Ralph
Short way to the same point as Ralph above. “What Winston Churchill said.”
The royals’ role is to sell the brand of Britain and secondly the brand of their own family, nothing else. If they engaged in politics, eventually they would be on the wrong end of the vote, and then what would be the point of keeping them? Dianna,William and Catherine all have seemed to have the job down well but not Charles. They would be wise not to fail at the job of marketing.
Stand aside allow the muslims to follow their true selfs, codes of conduct , inter tribe relations, long used and honored practice of war on one another (once out of the womb) , and 100% following of the Koran thus after a time little we need to worry of the few who remain in rags living in mud huts to worry us at all. Let those live who live still at that time.
It is very difficult to debate with one who has done little reading and still less thinking. Try reading the record of Umar Khayyam’s astronomy, or his Rubaiyat, or the philosophy of science discussed by al-Haytham, regarded by many as of no less importance than Thales of Miletus in establishing the scientific method.
And it is the “ogival” arch (of or pertaining to the ogee), not the “ogave” arch. There was indeed a golden age of Islamic scholarship, and the Ahmadiyya Muslims are doing their best to revive it, though they are much persecuted by other Muslims.
Or one might consider the discovery and ingenious deployment in Muslim architectural decoration of the eight semiregular tessellations (representational art in the mosques being forbidden much as it was in the churches under the puritans in Cromwellian England).
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. It is more valuable to recognize the good in the traditions of those of other faiths than it is
to sneer at them.
And the moral superiority of the majority of Muslims who do not endorse or practice baby-butchering over the horrifying denial of the Hippocratic Oath by profiteering doctors indulged by crazed politicians in the West is undeniable.
A little more even-handedness and a little less hate would be sensible. As the Book of Proverbs puts it, “A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight.”