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.
fobdangerclose says: May 31, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Short way to the same point as Ralph above. “What Winston Churchill said….”
____________________________
Indeed. The out-of-touch Lord needs to read ‘River War’ by Winston Churchill. I cannot repeat what Winston Churchill said of Islam here, as this is a family website. And I don’t want to be arrested by the UK’s 1984 thought-police.
However, another very valuable historical book is “The Syriac People”, by Yakup Tahincioglu, which details the dhimmitude (servitude) of Syriac Christians living under Islam.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Culture-Beliefs-Living-Anatolia/dp/6055524732
The loud subtext of this wonderful book is: “we have worked for Islam as good and reliable dhimmis (serfs) for 1,000 years, so why do you still persecute us?” It is a plaintive cry that goes unanswered. It is a plaintive cry that the Lord cannot hear and cannot understand.
In 1860 Diyarbakir in eastern Turkey was 55% Christian. Now there are only 40 (forty) Christians left, out of a population of 900,000. Does the Lord care? The tourist guide says there are 12 churches in the old city, dating from the 3rd century AD (this is where Christianity was first founded). But 11 of these churches have been burned to the ground in recent years. Does the Lord care? I care, and I am an Atheist……
A good read on this latter topic is ‘Paradise Lost’ by Giles Milton.
http://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Lost-Giles-Milton-ebook/dp/B005LWQAYC
Ralph
Back to the main point:
Australian ex-PM John Howard, as staunch a Royalist as any in the country, said, some years ago:
“The Australian Monarchy will not survive the reign of King Charles”
Monckton of Brenchley says: May 31, 2014 at 5:02 pm
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.
____________________________
Typical that the main complaint is of my typo error – while working on an iPad in a crowded bar. But the point remains, that the non-semicircular arch was designed and constructed long before Islam was invented. Indeed the Deyrulzafaran monastery in Mesopotamia contains the flattest arch ever made, and that was constructed in the 3rd or 4th century AD.
And the good Lord seems to be unaware that Omar Khayyam was not a Muslim. Like most or all of the scientists of this region during the ‘Golden Era’ of Islam, Omar Khayyam was charged with apostasy (which in Islam receives a death sentence) and his books burned. Try reading the translation by Edward FitzGerald.
And perhaps one should also mention that the great Muslim philosopher Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who translated much of Greek philosophy and science into Aramaic and Arabic, who was of course a Syriac Christian. The list does go on and on.
.
Oh, and if the Lord does not like ‘baby butchering’, as he cruelly terms it, I am presuming that he will openly condemn Koran sura 18, “The Cave”. The parable of ‘Moses and the Green Man’ in sura 18 says that:
Quote:
“As for the boy (who Moses murdered in cold blood), his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them. So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place, one better than him in purity and closer to having compassion.” K. 18:80
Yes, the moral of this wonderful parable is that if your child is disobedient, you should kill them, because god will give you a more obedient replacement child. This parable is the root cause of all the so-called ‘honour killings’ that now plague the West. So I do hope that in the spirit of ‘even-handedness’, as the Lord puts it, he will also condemn the Koran chapter 18.
The BBC and the UK media have so far refused to highlight the inverted morality of sura 18 of the Koran. But I am sure that the Lord’s presence and stature in the House of Lords will give him the necessary platform to condemn sura 18 in the Koran. Will he do this? For the sake of all the many hundreds of children who are slaughtered every year by their parents, because of this evil verse, will he stand up and condemn the Koran sura 18?
Ralph
Monckton of Brenchley says: May 31, 2014 at 5:02 pm
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.
____________________________
I think the good Lord misses the entire point here.
The Ahmadiyya are NOT Muslims. They are not even allowed call themselves Muslims in Pakistan, for instance. They are heretic apostates. They are kuffer unbelievers. They are slaughtered in the streets, and their temples are burned to the ground.
So the good Lord identifies two practitioners of progressive Islam – Omar Khayyam and the Ahmadiyya – and neither of them are Muslim !!! I think that polemic deserves a ‘D minus’.
However, if you dare to look at the problem rationally, this the whole problem with Islam. Freethinking is not allowed in Islam, because the Koran contains all knowledge and all human law, and so anyone who dares approach rational enlightenment is an instant heretic. Thus no good Muslim can ever be a scientist.
I rest my case.
Ralph
Totalitarian Prince – I thought this was going to be about Obama.
“Thus no good Muslim can ever be a scientist”
And no Jew or Christian can either:
“Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” – 1 Cor 18:20-25
“14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.” – Isaiah 29:14
Karim D. Ghantous says:
May 31, 2014 at 6:53 pm Jews and Christians can take it upon themselves to believe or not parts of the Bible or Koran. A Muslim who does that is fair game to be killed. Now tell, savant, what has Islam contributed to the world in the last, say, 1000 years, scientifically? Nothing that affects us. The Jews and Christians, perhaps apostates, but revered by scientists and the public at large, have brought all our science and technology. However, Muslims do contribute. A few years ago I read (somewhere) that there were 100 conflicts going on in the world that might be called “wars.” It turns out that Muslims were involved in 99 of them. That’s really special.
Oh Lord… (sic!)
I know Watts has a weird obsession with Monckton, but that does not excuse that he can post all sorts of nonsense here.
Yes, the Brits have a monarchy. But NO, unlike what Monckton implies, they do NOT rule. You may not know this, but there are actually elections in this country. The Royals don’t rule. Got that?
Here is an actual problem, but which is not addressed by Monckton because of his personal agenda: there are 26 Bishops in Parliament, which are NOT elected! In a democracy!! In a country where their church represents a minority in the population, they send 26 uneclected bishops. Their only qualification is to believe that they have an invisible friend living in the sky, apparently.
Monckton is a politician (with shitloads of time on his hands to write blog entries at his mate’s climate blog) — but he does not care about 3% of the “representatives” not being elected; instead bickers on about good old Charly – who is also not elected, but then, he does not sit in the HOL.
First; Prince Charles has made himself an outspoken advocate of “doing something” about atmospheric CO2. That makes the prince and all his “doing somethings” of general interest on this blog. The prince flies by private jet to Romania. Its of interest. Obviously, so is his nutty lambast against capitalism. The facts about the UK’s constitutional monarchy is also timely and relevant. Accusing Watts of having a weird obsession with Monckton is slandering WUWT. So please take it back.
Second. Your comment about the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords is ill-conceived. The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. The Senators represent the states, not the populations of the states. For most of our history they were elected by the state legislatures not by direct elections. The President is elected by Electors (still). States are free to choose the electors in any manner they see fit. The Supreme court is not elected. We could go on and on. What country doesn’t have some unelected rulers?
Finally, you say, “Royals don’t rule, got that” You are wrong. Prince Charles is never going to be an autocrat. But he is going to be the Head of State of several Kingdoms. What do you think a kingdom is? He has a very specific and important role to play in ruling those various kingdoms. He unsettles the constitutional order if he shares his political opinions precisely because the monarch does rule over the kingdom. Its all very complicated, historical and I think delicate. The prince doesn’t seem to appreciate how he upsets this balance when he takes sides on political issues. The guy needs more restraint because; royals do rule.
Matt, you need more education. Until then, exercise some restraint. Your ignorance is showing.
I think that this comment was intended to reveal the political stance POW was taking. The monarchy are the PR firm of the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as UK. And I feel that Prince Charles was unwise to make these comments of his known. Maybe he had a hidden agenda?
Anyway, it will blow over.
Buy Charlie a ticket to North Korea.
Poor ol’ Matt. Avoidance Central.
“Christians can take it upon themselves to believe or not parts of the Bible”
Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that they can’t take it upon themselves to believe selected portions. Or that is what they say, anyhow.
“croissez et multipliez-vous” – I do not trust that –
Before Eve there was “Lilith” –
read Shlomo Sand
Recall that my sole purpose in briefly mentioning Islam was to set right some unfortunate hate speech by a commenter. Mr Ellis, who wanders from the topic of the head posting, does himself no favors by relentlessly pointing out Islam’s defects and denying its valuable contributions to science, particularly during its golden age in the 9th to 12th centuiries.
Yes, the Tent-maker was Muslim: he may have studied under Ibn Sina (Latine Avicenna), and certainly translated one of his works, with a commentary. That he was not orthodox and used to bait the clergy is undeniable. The central theme of his drinking-song, for instance, exhibits throughout the Sufic insistence on the here-and-now and the doubt as to the hereafter.
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 in that he was punished by the Church for having drawn startlingly inappropriate theological conclusions from the then long-established fact that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa.
Khayyam’s contributions to mathematics included an ingenious geometric approach to solving each of the 14 classes of cubic equations by reference to the intersections of two conic sections.
Nor is Mr Ellis right to sneer at the Ahmadiyyas because other Muslims persecute them. They take an approach that I commend to him: they do not preach hate, but might almost be Christian in their emphasis on a gentler, kindlier and specifically more scholarly religion than that of the fanatics who, as another commenter has justly pointed out, have caused most of the wars and terrorist acts of recent times.
The gentleness of the Ahmadiyyas, whose annual conference in England I attended as their guest some years ago, is winning them converts from hard-line, traditional Islam. They now represent one-sixth of the entire Ummah and should not be dismissed as non-Muslim any more than it would be appropriate for Catholics to dismiss Protestants as non-Christian on the ground that, applying the strict (though inspirationally-expressed) test in the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins, they do not in all respects hold and teach the faith that was held and taught by all or nearly all the saints, doctors, and fathers of the Church until the Theses of Luther, the Sermons of Knox, and the Institutes of Calvin.
And, like anyone who has read – for instance – Dalrymple’s harrowing “From the Holy Mountain” is well aware of the rapid extinction and suppression of Christianity in many parts of the Muslim world (and also in Israel) over the past century. I am fully conscious of these things, and unhappy about them. But one should not allow distress and outrage, however justifiable, to blind one to the ancient Muslim contributions to mathematics, to science, to philosophy, and to poetry. It is a meeting of minds that we must seek, for only with mutual respect comes the removal of the motive for persecution – unjustifiable contempt.
The most extraordinary circumstance in the history of religion – which theologians, with an economy of words that is uncharacteristic of them, call simply the “Christ Event” – points the way. In an unconsidered outpost of the Roman Empire a carpenter’s son was executed for making a nuisance of himself and even the chief of his followers found it expedient to deny him. Yet within 100 years, and without a shot fired (I speak metaphorically), a religion with no wealth, no influence, no armies had become the dominant philosophical force throughout the known world, and has to a startling extent remained so to this day. The Christ Event did not occur because the Christians hated those who persecuted them, but because they honored the precepts of the Old Covenant so strongly re-emphasized in the New: thou shalt love.
If there is one purpose in this blog, it is to argue as vigorously as may be against the descent of science into knuckle-dragging, medievalistic superstition. We do not serve that objective well if we sneeringly dismiss the past intellectual contributions to science of those some of whose descendants are not worthy of them. There is no more place for hatred here than there is for its handmaid, unreason. And let us now get back on topic.
Dangerous radicalism My Lord, of the sort which has led the rebel colonists to the south to republicanism and the coronation of Mr O, who might just as well be titled His Imperial Majesty. Cromwell shromwell! How did that go, then? Give me death or give me taxes…with or without representation!
His Royal Highness has simply been converted to Greengoremonism, a religious cult currently affecting many folk in this post Christian age, in a Chestertonian sort of way. Likely likewise most of his advisers and chums…..of the four main political party leaders in the UK, I suspect two are believers, one just a cynical opportunist and three mighty huzzahs for Nigel!
The cult will eventually melt into history as they all do…and not coz of global warmin’ innit. It’s in the dark heart of our political class and their media lackeys where true danger lies. HRH has done many good things. I’m sure King Charles will do many more when his great mother…I am almost tempted to say Our Great Mother, but will restrain myself…meets her maker. Answer his nonsense with the trusty sword of truth, then read a few pages of Peter Simple. replace the Lawrenconian garb with the ermine and get a grip man, before you inflict President Cameron and Vice President Clegg upon us!
“Here is an actual problem, but which is not addressed by Monckton because of his personal agenda: there are 26 Bishops in Parliament, which are NOT elected!”
Well because the CofE is the established church, and has certain legal obligations and duties, its governing laws and regulations are given their final enactment by Parliament This is why the list of Parliamentary actions each year is called “Synod and General Measures” Hence the church has to be given some kind of representation in Parliament to discuss and present its view.
Besides would things improve any if we ditched the Bishops and remaining hereditaries and left the HoL’s revising functions entirely to second rate party hacks who were “bunged upstairs” to shut them up?
“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.”
Indeed where would science and mathematics be without algebra and algorithms, but the argument is that since then the Muslim world has been hag-ridden by its clerics and that this has stifled creativity and progress.
I have always felt his younger brother Andrew would make a much better king than Charlie.
The Tower and the Chop are urgently needed while QE is still about.
“They did not understand the religio-political realities of Scotland – the realities of Rangers vs Celtic”
I liked Billy Connolly’s take on this after a would be jihadi firebomber got the egestate kicked out of him by a ticked off Weegie at Glasgow Airport :
“religious nutters come to Glasgow and dinna bring their ain Fitba team, what a bunch of f*****g amateurs…”
One version of that here:
In all the claims and counter claims about authority and elections. Monckton (In his own words in another thread) claims he was elected by a higher authority. Monckton is cut from the same cloth as Charlie…
“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.”
It is the last effective window of opportunity to prepare for a particularly cold run of years from 2016 to 2024. A lot of people will be losing their credibility when it unfolds. The first big cold hit in a growing season is late March to mid June 2016.
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”
Make a new bookmark, any url will do
Edit the bookmark url to
javascript:scroll(0,document.body.scrollHeight);
select this url to scroll to the bottom of current document.
javascript:scroll(0,0);
takes you to the top
These royals are very expensive national house pets. But then, it appears as if so are our American president and his spouse, and they are much more dangerous at that.
so, Barry Soetero is a dangerous man ?
The difference between the Britain’s would-be king and ours is that Chuck can write his own speeches.
I used the word “personally” for a reason. I realize I may be forced to submit, but it will be without my consent. Thanks for letting me know my tone was misunderstood.