British Lord Christopher Monckton is one of the last of a dying breed. A man of varied interests and talents, he is brilliant, articulate, and absolutely sure of himself on the issues of the day. Even the most powerful world leaders are not exempted from criticism; including President Obama, who has been on the receiving end of Viscount Monckton’s scathing remarks.
First and foremost, Christopher Monckton is the world’s leading climate change skeptic and a dedicated foe of the despots who would impose their ruinous agenda on every sovereign Western nation. He stands against the tyrants who seek to redistribute the wealth of the West to the petty dictators who dominate the Third World.
Viscount Monckton came to international attention in the 1980’s as an adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when he disputed the honesty and accuracy of the Global Warming evangelists. To call Lord Monckton a skeptic is an major understatement. He sees the climate change movement as nothing less than an attempt by the political elite to punish the First World for many centuries of success and prosperity.
There is hardly a topic of interest in the news today that Viscount Monckton has not studied in depth. His opinions, while often controversial, are those of a man who has weighed the issues and is not afraid to speak his mind. The Inquisitr asked Lord Monckton if he would consent to a no holds barred interview and he kindly agreed. We proudly present the conversation between The Inquisitr’s Wolff Bachner and the ever charming Rt. Hon. Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Is the planet really at risk of a man made catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions from changes to the climate or is this simply another way for socialists, globalists and would be tyrants to take control of the world’s resources and economy, forcing First World nations to be the sugar daddies of failed dictatorships and Third World police states?
In 2006 Sir Nicholas Stern produced a report on the economics of climate change for the British Government. In that report, he assumed that there was a one-in-ten chance that man-made “global warming” would destroy the Earth altogether by 2100. It was only by making this extreme and absurd assumption, and hence by adopting a near-zero inter-generational discount rate, that he was able to make a case (and even then a remarkably tenuous one) for spending trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on shutting down the West in the name of Saving The Planet.
The Socialist Government that had commissioned his report was so pleased with its hilariously apocalyptic conclusions that he was given a peerage and is now Lord Stern. The report gave them, and hard-Left regimes worldwide, the excuse they needed to create a new, multi-layered, multi-national bureaucracy with vast powers of taxation, regulation and interference, even down to telling us what kind of light-bulbs we were permitted to use. Haters of freedom everywhere had a field day.
The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and it does not need to be saved again. In the past 16 years there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all. Zero. In 2008, after 11 years with no warming, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote a paper published by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in which they said that if there were to be 15 years without “global warming” a material discrepancy between their models’ predictions and measured reality would have arisen. So we now know, using the modelers own test, that their wretched models had been programmed greatly to exaggerate the amount of “global warming” we can expect.
In the generation that has passed since the UN’s climate panel issued the first of its four Assessment Reports in 1990, the world has warmed at half the UN’s central estimate. So far, then, there is no evidence of a problem: yet there is evidence of numerous governments pretending that there is a problem because it suits them ideologically and financially. The science is in, the truth is out, renewable-energy stocks are down, the game is up, Al Gore is through, the panic is off and the scare is over.
Who are the prime movers behind the scenes of the climate change industry, what is their real agenda and how will they benefit if they manage to impose their plans on the nations of the world?
The global warming profiteers – those gain the most financially from the climate scam – are bureaucrats in search of bigger empires, politicians in search of relevance, journalists in search of sales, rent-seeking “green”-energy “businesses” in search of subsidies, and environmental groups in search of wealth, influence, power and glory.
Some examples. James Hansen, the ridiculous, much-arrested fanatic at NASA who is one of the chief bleaters about the climate, made more than $1 million in climate-related profits last year alone. Al Gore has made well north of $100 million. Subsidies by taxpayers to climate-related spending in the United States alone now total more than $100 billion, and Mr. Obama says the figure will near-double by 2020. A landowner who allowed just six giant wind turbines on his land is making more than $5 million a year in subsidies from the UK Government. The subsidy to the giant 100-turbine offshore windfarm at Thanet, Kent, will amount to $2 billion – yes, that’s billion – over the next 20 years, and that is just one windfarm.
Under the UK’s Climate Change Act, British taxpayers will contribute $723 billion – yes, that’s billion – to futile attempts to make “global warming” go away over the next 40 years. The losers, of course, are ordinary taxpayers and consumers of electricity, who are paying through the nose to subsidize the pampered rich and the governing elite. “Global warming” is Robin Hood in reverse. It represents the greatest transfer of power and wealth in human history from the poor to the rich, from the little guy to the big guy, from the powerless to the powerful.
How deeply is the United Nations involved in the marketing of climate change?
On September 15, 2009, the UN promulgated the 186-page draft of what it hoped would be the Treaty of Copenhagen. That draft treaty would have established a world “government” (the word appears twice in that context in the draft) with enormous powers of taxation and regulation. Yet the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, and “vote” were entirely absent from the draft. Fortunately, the treaty failed as soon as it was exposed to the general public, and the Copenhagen conference in December 2009 was an incompetently-run failure. No one will hold a major international conference in Denmark again.
Notwithstanding the failure of Copenhagen, at Cancun the following year (when, as at Copenhagen, the temperature fell to record seasonal lows) some 1000 new supranational and global bureaucracies were created, each interlocking with the others and under the overall control of a new politburo in the shape of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Vast sums are being funnelled to these bureaucracies, whose officials are squandering them on projects to bring down the Western economies via the Agenda 21 program, a method of introducing environmental tyranny at local and regional level (where fewer people are watching) rather than at national level (where there is more vigilance).
In May 2011, Ban Ki-Moon, the catastrophic UN Secretary General, held a private meeting of his overpaid, over-privileged, over-pensioned senior officials to work out ways of bringing national sovereignty to an end, allowing the unelected UN to reign supreme as lords of a new global government. The meeting’s conclusion was that the environmental issue was a fine Trojan Horse that could be used as a way to conceal and simultaneously to justify the UN’s world-government power-grab.
However, in July 2012, at the Rio+20 environment conference, the UN was running scared of its opponents. For the first time at any UN-sponsored conference, the delegates from non-government organizations recognized by the UN were not permitted to meet or mix with the negotiating delegates from the UN’s member nations. They were confined in separate buildings, with aggressive UN goons keeping them apart.
Nevertheless, Rio+20 failed, with a limp, rambling, repetitive closing communique. Privately, UN officials at a meeting of ICLEI, the group responsible for getting Agenda 21 adopted by local authorities throughout the West, were admitting that they could no longer use the phrase “climate change” and could no longer argue for their programs of Communist centralization in the name of the environment, because the failure of the UN’s climate predictions meant that voters in those countries still allowed to have them were no longer willing to listen to the UN on environmental matters. Many national governments, notably those of the EU and its satrapy the UK, still believe in the apocalyptic picture of “global warming” from which the UN has greatly profited, but the people are now openly skeptical. The scare is indeed over.
Observers of the UN have been highly critical of the UN’s abysmal record on accountability and their failure to properly monitor or control their spending. Why should any nation trust the UN on climate change or agree to give them trillions of their citizen’s tax dollars?
I arranged for a Parliamentary Question to be put down in the House of Lords about how much money Britain had given the UN’s climate panel since its foundation in 1988. The reply: “We do not have that information.” Of course the Socialist government had that information, but they were not willing to disclose it even when asked in Parliament.
The UN squanders billions every year and does not publish detailed annual accounts. Worst of all, it is not elected by anyone: it is a self-perpetuating tyranny whose chief concern is the enhancement of its own powers and funding at the expense of the member nations. It now does more harm than good in the world, and it should be abolished.
There are hundreds of examples of outright fraud in the UN’s four Assessment Reports on the climate. Perhaps the most absurd of these is a graph which displays the changes in the Earth’s surface temperature year by year since 1850. Overlaid on this graph are four trend-lines, each starting more recently than the last, all ending in the present. The more recent trend-lines are steeper than the earlier trend-lines. From the relative slopes of the trend-lines, the UN falsely concludes that the rate of global warming is accelerating (which of course it cannot be after 15 years without any warming at all) and that we are to blame (which we cannot be, for the rate of global warming has not accelerated, and – over the long term – is half of what the UN had predicted in 1990).
When I approached the railroad engineer who chairs the UN’s climate working group and asked him to correct this error, he refused. I then consulted one of the lead authors of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, in which the bogus graph had appeared, and asked him to correct it. He also refused to do so and, like the railroad engineer, was altogether unable to defend the bogus graph as correct.
The offending graph also appeared in a leading scientific journal, accompanied by an editorial praising the UN’s climate panel for its work. And the EPA used it as a key part of its evidence in favour of treating carbon dioxide (a naturally-occurring trace gas that is essential to all life on Earth) as though it were a pollutant. When the EPA was told the graph was bogus, it nevertheless decided to retain the graph. So it is not only the UN’s climate panel that is corrupt: agencies of government and of government-funded science everywhere are cashing in on the scam, and are no longer telling us the objective, scientific truth. Yet they are bad at lying, for mendacity is the very repudiation of the scientific method. So they are no longer fooling anyone but themselves and the intellectually as well as financially bankrupt governments that fund them – for now.
Until recently, the United States has been one of the few nations that has strongly opposed the UN’s schemes for Global Governance. What is your opinion of President Obama’s change of direction and his attempts to impose UN treaties on America? Has Obama betrayed America to the globalists?
Mr. Obama was awarded the Mickey Mouse Nobel Peace Prize even before he took office as President of the United States. The aim was to induce him to abandon the national interests of the US in favour of the UN’s communist internationalism. Under the US Constitution, foreign treaties rank alongside the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the United States.
Therefore, every time a new international treaty is ratified by the US Senate in a two-thirds majority vote, real political power passes from elected hands in the US to unelected hands elsewhere. For it is the common characteristic of all supra-national or global entities of governance, from the UN and the World Bank to the Law of the Sea Conference and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that not one of them is elected by the peoples of the States parties to the treaties that established them.
If democracy is to survive, the US should refuse to ratify any international treaties whose governing bodies are not elected. Otherwise, the internationalization and eventual globalization of government will gradually weaken and eventually extinguish democracy itself, and the central ambition of the Founding Fathers of the United States will have been thwarted. My impression is that Mr. Obama would not mind in the least if democracy were forever destroyed. If so, he is not just un-American, he is UN-American: in fact, anti-American.
You recently gave an interview in which you savaged both the Democrats and Republicans for their failure to rein in the out of control spending, reduce the deficit and return to a smaller Federal government based on constitutional principles. You said the “Obama crew posed an ‘existential threat'” to the U.S. Is America on the road to disaster under its current leadership?
The central issue in the current election ought to be the bankruptcy of the United States. When Mr. Obama came to office, the accumulated national debt after two and a quarter centuries was $11 billion. It is now $17 billion. That rate of growth in total debt cannot be long sustained. It is now essential for the American people to replace the amateur in the White House with a successful, professional businessman who understands how many beans make 17 billion.
There will have to be sharp increases in taxation and sharp reductions in Federal spending, particularly on health and welfare programs. These cuts will be painful, but absolutely essential. So far, neither of the two major parties has shown the electorate that it understands how very serious the financial situation now is, or demonstrated that it has the economic competence to restore the finances of the United States. Your nation, like the United Kingdom and many European countries, faces complete financial ruin in the very short term. Collapse is not far off.
It is also essential that all US debts to foreign governments, and especially to the Chinese, are repaid at once. When Margaret Thatcher first took office as Prime Minister in 1979, her first economic decision was to pay back all of Britain’s borrowings from foreign governments. The reason was, and is, simple: a nation that owes money to other nations is no longer sovereign.
It has handed its sovereignty away to its debtors, and it can only walk tall among the nations if it owes other nations nothing. The Founding Fathers of the United States intended that your nation should be truly independent. That is why they wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence. The current Administration shows little or loyalty to the Founding Fathers’ vision. Instead, it appears to be following the shop-worn tenets of international Marxism, the creed that has inflicted more misery on Earth than any other.
It is the unhappy characteristic of Marxist regimes that they concern themselves less with the creation of new wealth than with the redistribution of existing wealth. That attitude engenders and perpetuates poverty. Who will get hurt first and worst if the foolishly generous lenders who are keeping the current Administration afloat decide (as, on the numbers, they should) that there is no prospect that they will ever be repaid, and that they will not lend any more? The poor will be the first victims of the failure of your governing class to live within its means: for it is they who are most directly and dangerously dependent upon the involuntary generosity of taxpayers.
Who will get hurt first as the rampant inflation caused by the Fed’s repeated money-printing takes savage hold? Not the rich, for we do not hold our assets in cash. Again, it is the poor who will be the greatest losers by the new inflationary madness that afflicts not only the United States but also Britain and, worst of all, the useless European Central “Bank” – not a true bank at all, but a weapon of economic mass destruction.
It is precisely because the poor are the greatest losers by the Administration’s twin Marxist policies of underfunded overspending and mindless money-printing that Mr. Romney was so wrong to say he did not propose to worry about the 47% of US citizens who do not pay Federal income tax. For it is the paradox of paradoxes in politics that the poor half of the nation votes for the current Marxist Administration, though that Administration’s policies are calculated to do fatal harm to the poor.
If Mr. Romney truly wanted to be elected President, then it is the rich half of the nation that he need not worry about during the campaign: for they will vote for him anyway. Indeed, they will vote for anyone who is not the current Marxist incumbent of the White House. His tired, inept, gaffe-ridden, lackluster campaign suggests that he does not want to win the election. If he did, then he and all his candidates would concentrate exclusively on the non-paying half of the electorate, reminding them that the only consequence of Mr. Obama’s policies will be to make the poor poorer still.
As a wise clergyman once said, in a remark often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor.” The current Administration is going to make everyone except its privileged aristocracy of favored bureaucrats a whole lot poorer. It is going to make the poorest even poorer than they already are. Mr. Romney, instead of looking the other way, should be standing up and saying so, over and over again, until he overcomes the racialistic or atavistic tendency of the non-payers to believe the nonsensical and wildly unaffordable promises of Mr. Obama and persuades a small but sufficient fraction of them to change their vote. That will not be easy, and it may or may not succeed. But Mr. Romney might at least give it a try.
What must the United States do for the country to have any chance to return to prosperity or is it simply too late for America? Is America on an irreversible slide into bankruptcy and a complete loss of status as a world power?
As I write this, I have just returned from listening to a campaign speech by Gary Johnson, the two-time Republican Governor of solidly-Democrat New Mexico, who bluntly stated the first requirement for a return to prosperity and strength in the United States. He said, “We have to balance the budget, and we have to do it now. Not in ten years, but now. Anytime later than now is too late.” In that, he is right. He was refreshingly honest in going on to say that balancing the budget would hurt just about everyone in the short term, but not balancing it at once would hurt everyone a whole lot more in the long term.
There is an interesting lesson from US history. President Roosevelt introduced the New Deal as his solution to the Great Depression that followed the spectacular stock-market crash of 1929. The New Deal was popular, because his opponents – just like Mr. Romney – did not bother to argue against it as they should have done. Some of them, just like Mr. Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan, who to his eternal shame voted for Mr. Obama’s infamous and abjectly-failed “stimulus” package, voted for the New Deal.
President Roosevelt benefited from the New Deal by going on to win two more terms in office. However, the nation suffered, and suffered greatly. It came out of recession a full ten years later than Europe, where – in those days – there was still enough governmental common sense not to believe that “stimulus” packages were anything other than a short-term fix with a savage long-term penalty.
There must be no more “stimulus” packages, no more borrowing by Federal or State administrations, no more money-printing, no more bailing out white elephants too big to fail. No white elephant is too big to fail. The politicians should say bluntly and honestly to the voters, “If you put your money in a bank that goes under, if you are foolish enough to entrust your life savings to any institution with Al Gore on its board, then we will not rescue you from the consequences of your own idiotic folly.”
Margaret Thatcher was often criticized, wrongly, for what her sneering opponents called “handbag economics”. Indeed, 364 Socialist and Marxist economists wrote an open letter to her in The Economist, saying that her economic policies would end in failure. All these hard-Left, politically-“correct” academics were shown to be entirely wrong when she not only stopped having to borrow money but began paying back the National Debt at a rate so rapid that almost half of the 200-year accumulated debt had been paid off after her 13-year term of office.
Thrift is alien to Presidents, congressmen and bureaucrats, but thrift pays. Or, as we say in Scotland, “A penny hained [i.e. saved] is a penny gained.” Handbag economics works. If there is not enough money in the handbag to do the marketing, then there will be no food on the table. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, even for those on food stamps. So the most important step that your political class can take to restore America to prosperity is to get real and tell the voters that from now on there will be no more borrowing and no more printing, and that America will once again proudly pay her way in the world.
Why do you think Mr. Obama is so willing to continue his policies that so many of his opponents, and even some of his supporters, have called a prescription for disaster? What is your opinion of the mind set of our current President and his political philosophy?
Mr. Obama is the son of a Marxist. He is married to a Marxist. He was educated by Marxists. His closest friends have been and are Marxists. It is no surprise, then, that he is a Marxist himself.
Shortly after he was elected, I gave a press conference at the Willard Hotel in Washington, at which I said how surprised I was that the United States, of all nations, had made the mistake of electing a Marxist from Kenya as its President. John Gizzi, the veteran political columnist for Human Events and the doyen of the Press Corps, drew me thoughtfully on one side and told me, “We don’t use the term ‘Marxist’ here: it has connotations of McCarthyism.” In his subsequent report of my press conference, each of my references to Mr. Obama and his Administration and its policies as “Marxist” had been delightfully altered to “very extreme Socialist”.
Within six months John Gizzi was himself openly describing Mr. Obama as a Marxist. McCarthy failed. He could root out Communist enemies of the American way within the United States, but he could not root them out in far-flung nations like Kenya. So now an enemy of everything that America has ever stood for is in the White House, and if you make the grave mistake of leaving him there for another four years America as we know it and love it will not survive.
Yet I fear that that is precisely the mistake you are going to make, and you will make it because Mr. Romney has not worried enough about the non-payers to convince that small but necessary fraction of them that the Marxist policies in which Mr. Obama so naively but utterly believes not only make the rich poor but make the poor very much poorer still.
If Romney were to defeat Obama and become the next president, do you think he would do anything to change the direction of America for the better or is he just another globalist who will continue on the path to the destruction of America?
It is difficult to dispel the impression that Mr. Romney knows remarkably little about foreign affairs. Yet for America, as for Britain, for historical reasons foreign affairs are of far greater importance than they are for any other nation. The most obvious foreign-affairs engagement of the United States is with the ancient and surely now outdated and unnecessary historical division between the inheritors of the sons of Abraham – the Hebrews, who follow the Jewish faith from which our own Christianity springs, and the Arabs, who follow Muhammad.
Never has that sad division mattered more than it does just at this moment. For the crazed leadership in Iran, exploiting Mr. Obama’s amateurish ineptitude in foreign affairs and his atavistic predisposition in favour of Islam, is unopposed as it develops a nuclear weapon of mass destruction which it has already announced will be deployed against Israel at the earliest possible opportunity.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s formidable Prime Minister, has begged Mr. Obama to draw a “red line” which, if Iran crosses it, will trigger a decisive intervention by the United States and her allies to prevent Iran from developing and deploying its nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama, for the selfish political reasons that drive him absolutely, has petulantly refused even to meet Mr. Netanyahu. That refusal may yet come to be seen as far and away the greatest of the Amateur’s many mistakes.
Yet Mr. Romney is not hounding Mr. Obama for his refusal to do his duty and meet the head of government of one of America’s loyal allies. He is not daily hammering away the message that burying one’s head in the desert sand while Iran develops a weapon so monstrous that it could trigger a Third World War is perhaps the greatest abdication of political responsibility ever perpetrated by any US President. He simply does not seem to understand just how serious the situation is, and just how important it is that Mr. Obama should meet Mr. Netanyahu.
Given that very nearly every terrorist act over the past decade or two has been carried out in the name of Allah, and given that oil-funded Islam is aggressively spreading beyond its historical territories, Mr. Romney and his advisers should be concentrating much more actively on positioning the United States as a force for good in resolving the long-outstanding conflict between Islam and Judaism and hence between Islam and the West. But Mr. Romney does not really appear interested. In this sense, he is certainly no globalist.
However, the current Republican-In-Name-Only Party, like Not The Conservative Party in the UK, is insensitive to the danger that the increasing globalization of government – while profitable to the governing class itself – is already proving both financially and politically costly to the West. The UN has long since abandoned any pretense at impartiality in foreign affairs and has become an embittered enemy of liberty, free markets, democracy, prosperity, growth – indeed, an enemy of the West itself. Mr. Romney is silent about the costly, unchecked, undisciplined growth of unelected, alien, bureaucratic-centralist institutions of global governance. Insofar as it is possible to guess what he will do about it, the best guess is that he will do nothing about it.
What he should do is to declare what might become known as the Romney Doctrine: the United States will not accede to any new international treaty unless the governing body for the implementation of that treaty is elected at intervals of no more than five years by the voters of all the States parties to that treaty, and the United States, after a warning period of five years, will leave any existing international institution of governance (e.g. the UN) that has not reformed its treaty to mandate regular election of its leadership by the peoples of the member-states.
No doubt it will be argued that democracy is inconvenient at international level, not least because many nations do not have it at home and will be reluctant to allow it internationally. But democracy was what your Founding Fathers intended you to have, and you will lose it if you allow your sovereignty to be salami-sliced away, treaty by treaty.
In Britain, there has been steady movement towards the abyss of socialism. Pride in the accomplishments of the British Empire is frowned upon, multiculturalism is the order of the day and immigrants from have changed to face of British society. You literally have Islamist fanatics parading through the streets of London carrying signs that say “Democracy go to hell” and “Behead those who insult Islam.” What has happened to the once proud nation of Great Britain?
Britain has had to endure a more extreme form of Socialism than any other European nation. A vignette will illustrate this. In 1979, during a miners’ strike, a regional union agitator called Arthur Scargill succeeded in organizing a mob that closed down a coke-works by violently intimidating anyone who tried to get through the gates. This drew him to the attention of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s secret police, who invited him to Moscow to study at the Patrice Lumumba University, where the world’s terrorist cannon-fodder were trained.
Scargill took a Polish freighter from Tilbury to what was then Leningrad and went from there by train to Moscow. He spent only three weeks at the Patrice Lumumba University and then transferred to the Lenin Institute, where the world’s terrorist leaders were trained. He spent five months there, before taking an Aeroflop flight to Paris, where he switched to a Brutish Airways flight so as not to be seen arriving in London on a Soviet aircraft. We were following him all the way, so we were not fooled. Four years later he led the miners’ strike that was heavily defeated by Margaret Thatcher, even though Moscow had sent $30 million that we could trace (and Heaven knows how much more that we could not) to the union via the then Czechoslovak embassy.
Our unions, and the Labour party, were effectively controlled by Moscow for decades. This cancerous, secret, profound and prolonged Marxist influence has left an ugly, permanent stain on British politics. The Labour and Liberal parties espouse policies that are frankly Marxist, though they become offended if one mentions the word because they know how unpopular Marxism is among the ordinary voters. The policies they pursue are indistinguishable from those of Mr. Obama’s Democrats. They are totalitarian to the core.
Sadly, their pursuit of openly totalitarian policies has now been adopted also by Not The Conservative Party, because “Call-Me-Dave” Cameron, Not The Prime Minister, thought that “green” (or, rather, Red) policies would make his party look hip and cool and with-it and fit and gorgeous to Britain’s youth. The party’s Leftward lurch under Cameron has backfired badly. He failed to win the last general election outright, even though he faced the most inept and demoralized Labor party in history. And he will lose the next election big-time, not least because his move to the Left has allowed the United Kingdom Indepenence Party to move in from the Right and take just enough votes from Not The Conservatives to make sure that they never again win an election with an overall majority unless and until they give the people of Britain a long-overdue referendum on whether Britain should stay in or leave the European tyranny-by-clerk.
Cameron has attempted to appease his party’s grass-roots members by saying he is mildly opposed to multiculturalism on the ground that, though ideologically attractive to him, it has not been made to work in practice. He is nearly always carefully silent on Islam, for – like much of Britain’s governing class – he is frightened of the mad mullahs who preach violence in too many of our nation’s growing number of mosques.
From my conversations with many British friends, I have yet to hear one person I know support the current move towards multiculturalism and the decline of British national pride. One can read report after report on the total frustration of native born Englishmen and Englishwomen over the policies of the British government and the absurd laws concerning personal freedom, hate speech and criticism of religion.
There is indeed an abyssal gulf between the governed in Britain and those who govern us. The British people do not want to belong to the European tyranny-by-clerk, which makes five laws in six for us with virtually no democratic input (the European “parliament” does not even have the power to bring forward a Bill), but the governing class sullenly refuses to give us a referendum on the subject. Cameron promised to do so before the last General Election, but he did not honor his promise.
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Britain. It is forbidden to report more than the sketchiest details of cases in our magistrates’ courts, where all criminal cases are first heard and where 90% of them are decided. It is forbidden to mention that most violent street crime is committed by black people, or otherwise to mention race in a context that would reflect discredit upon the black population, even if the context is entirely factual.
The European tyranny is working on Directives that will make it illegal to criticize it, and on a proposal to set up a European Environmental Criminal Court that will imprison anyone who dares to question the global warming scam.
The right of habeas corpus, by which no one could be arrested without good cause or detained indefinitely without trial, has been abolished after more than 1000 years. Now any bureaucrat in any European nation can issue a warrant for the arrest of any British citizen, and the British authorities are obliged (and all too eager) to arrest that citizen and extradite him. He has no right of appeal, and the court hearing before he is bundled on to a plane is a pure formality, during which the nation seeking his extradition does not even have to produce any evidence that he has done wrong.
Recently an acquaintance of mine had his front door kicked in at 3 a.m. by Britain’s secret police (aka the Regional Crime Squads, aka the National Crime Squad, aka the Serious Organized Crime Agency, aka the Crime Agency). This thoroughly corrupt body is so secret that one is not allowed to know the names of any of its officers or the locations of any of its premises. It has changed its name half a dozen times since it was established (by a Socialist/Marxist government, of course) in 1998, to minimize its long-term liabilities for its own serious crimes,
The Secret Police tore their victim from the arms of his pregnant wife, kicked his two screaming children aside, flung him into a van and hauled him up in front of Mr. Justice Collins at the High Court in London.
Judge Collins is a good man. He is the first solicitor ever to sit on the High Court Bench. He suspected, rightly, that the Hungarian authorities, who had issued the bogus European Arrest Warrant for their intended victim, were not ready to try him and probably had not even the flimsiest of circumstantial cases against him. He had started a business in Hungary that had failed owing $30,000, and that was and is no crime.
But the judge was powerless. Almost weeping with horrified frustration, he said that under the rules governing European arrest warrants he had no power to ask the Hungarians any questions at all. He was not allowed to ask whether there was any evidence against the accused, still less what that evidence was. He was not allowed even to ask whether the Hungarians were ready to try him, though the rules stipulated that they should not apply for a warrant until they were ready.
Of course, the Hungarians had no evidence against him, and they were certainly not ready to try him. They bundled him on to a plane and locked him up in a dank prison cell, where they tortured him by feeding him nothing but rancid pork fat three times a day. He was not allowed proper exercise or access to daylight. At the end of four months, they had still not told him why he had been arrested, and had not allowed him access to a lawyer (not that there would have been any point, because they had not said why they had arrested him).
By now the pork fat and the absence of a balanced diet had made him gravely ill. The torture was working. He showed the first signs of scurvy – a dangerous disease caused by Vitamin C deficiency. The absence of calcium in his diet and the lack of sunlight gave him a Vitamin D deficiency as well, making him so ill that he was barely able to stand.
He wrote to his Not The Conservative member of Not the European Parliament, asking for help. The “Conservative” member of “Parliament” wrote back to say that if the Hungarian authorities had decided he was guilty of a crime then no trial was necessary: he was guilty as charged and deserved to suffer. To this bottom-of-the-barrel level of uncaring ineptitude and malice has Not The Conservative Party sunk.
The desperate victim wrote to a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party who sat in the European Parliament, my noble friend the Earl of Dartmouth. His Lordship acted at once, demanding access to the prisoner. Four times the Hungarians moved their torture victim before they caved in to a threat that he would create a major diplomatic incident unless they allowed him the access that was his right. He was horrified at the prisoner’s state, and got him out at once. The Hungarian Foreign Minister has not yet been arrested for unlawful arrest and imprisonment, or for prolonged torture, but in due course, by a delightful irony, a European Arrest Warrant will be issued for his extradition to London on a criminal charge of aggravated torture that could lock him up for the rest of his natural life – and that is no less a punishment than he thoroughly deserves.
Consider how furious and terrified you would be if you were denied all rights to be heard before you were extradited to the foul, noisome prison of an alien regime that was torturing you and not only denying you access to your consulate and your lawyer but also refusing to tell you what you were charged with and why. Yet this is how British subjects are treated in the exciting new Europe that most Britons hate and now have good reason to fear.
How was the British government able to radically alter the philosophy and laws of your nation?
Successive British governments have stolen our sovereignty, our democracy and our independence from us by stealth. When we first joined the European tyranny, we were told that it would never be anything more than a free-trade area. Many of us believed we were being told the truth. Secretly, however, ministers were already making plans to turn Britain into a mere regional satrapy of the emerging European oligarchy. Behind Parliament’s back, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, gave away Britain’s fishing waters (which then represented five-sixths of European waters). Result: massive overfishing has destroyed our fish stocks.
With a series of incremental treaties, each of which was described by the Eurocrats and the media as little different from previous treaties, the powers of the Brussels politburo grew while those of elected governments such as that of the United Kingdom declined. The people were told that Europe was good for them, but more and more of them are now waking up and realizing that Europe is bad for them. The Conservative party, whose current leader is sappily pro-tyranny, refuses to allow the people to have their say on whether they stay in the European tyranny or come out. If we got a vote on the issue, we would vote to leave, and be independent again.
How does the government succeed in forcing their socialist agenda on the British voters?
Socialism cannot deliver bread today, yet it promises jam tomorrow. The free market delivers bread and jam today, but only if you work hard enough to be able to pay for it. Those rent-seekers and vested interests who do not want to work but still want jam will always tend to vote Socialist, for Socialism is the paradise of vested interests.
Then the money runs out. Every Socialist government that Britain has ever had has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in, and with the nation’s finances in crisis.
However, most voters have very short memories. So they continue to fall for the vain promises of the Socialists, because jam tomorrow with no strings attached can seem superficially more attractive than bread and jam today earned by the sweat of your brow.
In short, the Left favors vested interests over the general interest, and the vested interests are skillful at suggesting that whatever makes them wealthy at our expense is also enriching us too. With better education, Socialism would disappear.
Why would British leaders even want to undo several hundred years of British success as a leader of the free world?
Tony Blair once said that he would be happy if he could wipe out all of British history. He did not want people to remember the glories of our past. He did not want the British people to compare how things are unfavorably with how things were. The reason was that he knew that he and his Cabinet were painfully inadequate to restore Britain to glory: so they preferred to hand Britain over to our new European masters in return for being able to take on senior posts in the unelected European clerkdom when the electorate at home voted them out of office.
To British politicians, the European Union represents the hope of life after political death: the hope of resurrecting their shoddy careers without ever having to kiss a baby or face the electorate again. It is no surprise, then, that a recent survey showed only 48% support for the European Union among the general population of Europe, but 96% support among Europe’s politicians. British politicians are no less vain and no less ambitious than other politicians who look upon Brussels as their retirement home at taxpayers’ expense. Once, they would have been less vain and more ambitious for the good of their country. Not any more. As Francis Bacon once wrote in one of his great Essays: “Beware small men in great place.”
The recent violence that erupted in the Muslim world has stunned many in the West, yet the elected leaders of Western nations refuse to lay any blame on Islam.
It isn’t just individual fanatics in caves like Bin Ladin or Mullah Omar who are attacking Western society. Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke about the founding of “a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”
If you read Arabic or if you go to the MEMRI website, you can find hundreds of accurate translations of speeches and statements by prominent Muslim clerics and Arab political leaders who call Jews “apes and pigs” while demanding the utter destruction of Israel. Coptic Christians in Egypt are an endangered minority and Christians have fled every Muslim majority nation by the millions.
Is Islam a “Religion of Peace” that is exploited by a few fanatics? Or does it represent an aggressive, imperialist philosophy that intends to impose itself on the entire human race? Is Iran under the Ayatollahs the future model for the Free World if the current Western attitude continues to prevail?
One should distinguish clearly between the powerful minority of Muslim leaders who preach hatred against the West and the overwhelming majority who do not believe in violence. Unfortunately, some Western leaders – rightly not wanting to cause offence to the moderate majority of Muslims – are insufficiently plain-spoken when faced with the extremist minority.
Some years ago I was given a warning that open sedition was being preached in certain mosques in the UK. I arranged for the mosques to be monitored. As a result, one or two extremist clerics were firmly dealt with, and one has just been extradited. It is regrettable that Islam’s places of worship in the United Kingdom have been used, on occasion, by those who – in preaching hatred – neither favour Britain nor Islam.
In southern Spain, during the long and productive period of uneasy but effective coexistence between Christians and Muslims, an elegant fusion of the two cultures came about even while the two religions remained distinct. The architectural apotheosis of this happy cultural fusion is the Alhambra, one of the world’s finest buildings. This period of productive co-operation was brought to an end by the eventual expulsion of the Muslims from the Peninsula.
We have much to thank the Muslim scholars for. It was al-Haytham, in 11th-century Iraq, who first gave the world what we now recognize as the scientific method. The very words algorithm and algebra come from classical Arabic. Were it not for the learned librarians in Cordoba, the great classical texts of Greece and Rome that brought about the Renaissance in Europe would never have become available to us. I studied those texts at Cambridge, and remain grateful to the wise scholarship of medieval Islam, without which my studies would have been impossible.
Looking at the acts of violence practiced today by that small and militant faction, I am saddened that Islam sometimes seems to have abandoned the considerable scholarship and refinement in learning that was once its hallmark. In the tenth century AD, Islam even went so far as formally to abandon the exegesis of the Koran and other early works that was known as ishtihad, its then imams declaring arrogantly that all theological questions that might possibly arise had already arison, and that there was nothing more to be said.
From then on, the stupid party gradually gained ascendancy over the scholars. The scholars are still there – notably in the Ahmadiyya presentation of Islam, which is close to Christianity in that its focus is upon peace, not violence. Also, it is the conscious ambition of the Ahmadiyya Muslims to restore scholarship to the heart of Islam, and bring it back to the learning in which – at the turn of the second millennium – it comfortably outstripped the Christian West.
No small part of the problem, of course, is the Palestine question. When British politicians early in the last century talked loftily about “giving a land without people to a people without land”, the seeds of the crisis were sown. For there were a million Palestinians in the “land without people”, and everyone understandably felt so sorry for the Jewish race after the unholy slaughter that so many millions of its members had suffered at the hands of the Nazis that the rights of the Palestinians were forgotten in the scramble to give the Jews a homeland centered upon Jerusalem itself.
One can see exactly how it was that this mad solution to the question of the world might compensate the race that had been decimated in the death-camps came about and was thought to be reasonable at the time. It is also possible to discern that the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees, still living in squalid tent-camps to this day, are being exploited by the Arab side as a way of raising international awareness of their plight. Thanks to vast oil wealth, it is of course possible for the Arab world to provide citizenship, housing and all the joys of life to those in the camps, but the camps are there for a propaganda purpose.
How, then, to square the most refractory circle in international politics? Perhaps the most innovative solution is a financial one. The first step would be to identify all descendants of the original Palestinians in what is now Israel, as well as all existing Palestinians in Israel, and offer each of them a handsome cash settlement if they will only agree to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist, and – if they do not wish to remain as Israeli citizens – to move elsewhere in the Arab world.
If every Palestinian were offered, say, $100,000 for a fresh start provided that all Palestinians and all adjacent Arab nations agreed to settle the conflict with Israel forever, the cost would be little more than a couple of years’ climate-change expenditure globally. Now that climate change is known not to be as severe a problem as was once thought, the cash could advantageously be redeployed to sort out the Israel/Palestine question. The rights of the Palestinians would at last have been recognized and respected; and the right of the State of Israel to exist would have been secured.
The danger, if we do not try rather more determinedly to bring the problem to an end, will be that an inexorable increase in mutual hatred and contempt between the Palestinians and their many Arab and Muslim allies on the one hand and the nations of the Judaeo-Christian West on the other: and that kind of hatred is what leads to war. I do not like the smell of it. Expensive though my proposed solution to the Middle Eastern problem may now appear, I venture to suggest that it will prove many times less expensive than the conflict that now begins to look depressingly inevitable.
From the Christian perspective, there is no place at all for hatred of Islam. The commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is entirely clear. It is our duty to try to restore – via scholarly exchange and development, via the peaceable mission of the Ahmadiyyas (who now represent one-sixth of all Islam), and via a less half-baked settlement of the Middle Eastern question than has been put forward to date – the harmony with our fellow People of the Book that it is our Christian duty to promote and to maintain. That does not mean we should let our guard down against those within the Islamic fundamentalist movement who would wish us ill whatever we did: but maintaining a hostile face – however much it may appear to be justified in the light of a near-endless series of terrorist acts, from the Twin Towers to the Benghazi consulate – is not the Christian way.
I recently interviewed Pamela Geller, the woman who led the protest that successfully blocked the construction of the mega mosque at ground zero of the World Trade Center. I asked her if there was any hope for the Europe that once led the world and ushered in the Age of Enlightenment or was Europe doomed to be conquered by Islam? Ms. Geller replied, “Yes, Europe is over. Europe has surrendered.” Do you agree with her sentiments ? Has Europe surrendered?
Europe sometimes seems to have surrendered. Indeed, the policy of the British Foreign Office and of the new Foreign Ministry of the European clerkocracy too often seems to be the policy of the pre-emptive cringe on this and on many other issues. It is almost as though many of them are suffering from a post-colonial guilt complex. And when the supposedly Christian Archbishop of Canterbury bleats about how desirable he thinks it is to introduce Sharia law into Britain, the triumph of Western self-abnegation seems complete.
Certainly, there are those within Islam who talk quite openly about what they call “the power of the womb”. They have noticed that the West has decided that torturing and dismembering little children in the womb of their mother, and without even ensuring that the little children are anesthetized before they are tortured, is lawful and even, in a ghastly perversion of the distinction between right and wrong, morally commendable. Muslims do not torture and kill their children by the million, as we do. In this one crucial respect, Islam is unquestionably superior to the governments of the Christian West that have allowed and even promoted unrestrained abortion on demand.
Yet it is not only the moral but also the political consequences of the disfiguring asymmetry between the attitudes of the Arab world and the West to little children’s right to life that should be considered. For the West is literally killing off its own race, while Islam is not. As a result, not only by direct (and generally unrestricted) immigration but also by the power of the womb, Islam is gradually – and deliberately – replacing our collapsing indigenous populations with its own people.
Insofar as this is to be regarded as a problem to be solved rather than as an inevitable consequence of our legislators’ cruel and culpable immorality, the first and necessary step towards its solution is to restore the once-overriding prohibitions against infanticide that were formerly and rightly universal in the Christian countries. If abortion is not outlawed outright, as it should be, the demographic consequences will be ineluctable.
In all previous historical eras, much trouble has arisen when a failing population in a given territory comes to be replaced by a more vigorous race. The Islamic peoples are now not only more morally upright than we, in the greatest of all matters (that of life and death), but also more vigorous than we. They are proud of what they believe, while we no longer stand up for the faith for which our forefathers lay down and died. If ever there were an exemplar of the adverse real-life consequences of a grim, systematic, legally-permitted but morally-outrageous crime, it is this one.
Can Europe survive the insanity of multiculturalism, failed socialist economic policies and an invasion of millions of hostile immigrants? Can Europe retain its Western identity as an enlightened group of proud individual nations or is about to succumb to the tyranny of the collective or become a religious theocracy?
Europe was once a religious theocracy, and the religion was Christianity, and it was arguably more humanely and efficiently governed then than now. However, the intellectual feebleness and cowardice of too many bishops and other church leaders in Europe suggests that the likelihood that Christianity will play a significant part in the future reshaping of Europe is remote. That is a shame.
I do not think that Europe will become an Islamic theocracy because we are too fond of our hard-won freedoms to discard them because they are incompatible with Sharia law. If Islam were to attempt to take Europe over, in the long run it will have no more lasting success than had Hitler or Napoleon.
As to “multiculturalism”, it is one of the cluster of meaningless abstract nouns – like “sustainability”, or “social justice”, or “progressivism”, that are substitutes for real policy thinking on the Left. Europe has always taken pride in the diversity of its populations. I pray it will always do so. Long before the American song-writers began talking of the racial “melting-pot”, Europe was already a melting-pot.
Yet it is sensible to restrict immigration to a slower rate, so as to allow more time for assimilating those who wish to move to Europe, and for letting the people of Europe accept the assimilation. The undue haste with which rates of immigration have expanded (not least because Leftist regimes are known to be soft on immigration because they know most immigrants vote Left) is causing tensions that would never have arisen if a gentler and more orderly rate of immigration had been introduced.
So, will the West lose its identity? Yes, I think there is a real danger of that, but the danger does not come so much from Islam or from Socialism as from international bureaucratic centralism – the globalization of government in unelected hands. As I have said before, no supranational or global institution is ruled by people whom we elect. They are all controlled by people who have not been voted for by anybody, but have merely been appointed by a process that is usually a long way from transparent.
Unless the nations of the West – those of them which, unlike Brussels-governed Britain, are still recognizably democratic – utterly refuse ever again to transfer any of their people’s sovereignty, independence, democracy or wealth to any international institution unless and until that institution’s council shall have been elected by the peoples of the world, democracy will slip away by little and little, and the West with it. For it was we who invented the word; we who gave the concept life; we who spread it to many nations and inspired the hope of it in the breasts of all peoples who lack it yet. Democracy is the greatest of the many gifts the West has given to the world. Let us awaken to the dangers that the world may lose it as Europe lost it. Let us care for it and make it flourish again worldwide: for if we do not, who will?
Even if we take it for granted that Viscount Monckton is a brilliant man and his opinions are well informed and honest, why should Americans care about the thoughts of a member of the British Nobility? What relevance do the ideas and experiences of a well to do Englishman have for the readers of The Inquisitr?
Viscount Monckton speaks about the invisible power brokers who do not believe in freedom or the right of the individual to shape our own destiny. There are people on this planet, many with billions of dollars and far reaching influence, who dream of imposing their vision of the world on all of us. Not by the ballot box, but in secret and by the use of fear and corruption. To the globalists, we are nothing more than a bothersome collection of animals, sucking the life out of poor Mother Earth.
The time for hesitation is over. We can no long sit back, bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best. As you read the words of Christopher Monckton, you will begin to understand there is a deep divide over every issue. You will realize that all is not as it seems in the halls of power. Only you can decide who is telling the truth, as long as you retain the freedom to decide.
As Americans, we have a unique privilege. We live in a brilliantly conceived Republic, with our timeless Constitution, and we have the right to vote. Our media, as biased as it may be, is not yet controlled by the state. The truth is still available if we are willing to read, watch, listen and learn.
The freedoms we have came at a terrible price. We triumphed over a foreign king in a costly revolutionary war. We survived the horrors of a Civil War that almost tore our nation asunder. We joined in two World Wars, and we witnessed the nightmare of the trenches of the Western Front, the concentration camps of Hitler and the nuclear hell of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our citizens fought and died in the frozen wastes of far away Korea. We suffered the despair of Vietnam and now we are embroiled in the dual tragedies of Iraq and Afghanistan. On 9/11, terrorism touched the lives of every American and changed our nation forever.
Through all of the chaos, one truth has always prevailed. We are all part of a great, sovereign nation that aspires to bring peace and democracy to every corner of the globe. Yet, there are others who seek to keep the downtrodden millions in poverty and darkness. They seek to foster their own selfish agendas and you and I stand in their way. They would inspire their own people to hate and murder those of us who are blessed with the bounties of life.
Americans have a responsibility to be educated, informed citizens. Yes, we all live on the same planet and we do have an obligation to protect our dying world, but not at the loss of our sovereignty or by abandoning our democracy to the puppeteers who would rule over us. The United Nations, Agenda 21 and countless treaties written by un-elected bureaucrats are no substitute for our Constitution. Failed European Socialism is no substitute for free enterprise and the millions of small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.
How can any individual hope to prevail against such powerful forces? How can one person make a difference? We must treasure and protect our nation in order to help build a better world. A world built on a foundation of freedom and law; not the propaganda of those who see humanity as a blight on the planet or those who would oppress you in the name of the deity they worship. We must expose the secret agendas of the bankers and the billionaires to whom you are nothing more than a number who can be used to increase their profits.
Many great thinkers have said the 2012 Presidential election is the most important election in America’s history. We must always remember that only 537 votes placed George Bush in the White House. If you gained anything from reading the words of Viscount Monckton, you will realize our world is teetering on the brink. The time is at hand, and on November 6, 2012, every American who is eligible must exercise their greatest freedom and Vote!
We end this interview with a poem by the American poet Longfellow. These words inspired Viscount Monckton and were spoken at the close of his speech exposing the Globalist agenda of the Treaty Of Copenhagen:
“O Ship Of State
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
‘Tis of the wave and not the rock;
‘Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest’s roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o’er our fears,
Are all with thee,—are all with thee!”