By Rich Kozlovich
This from a piece I wrote in 2014, and given his recent lunatic blathering at COP 28, I think this is information that needs to be brought forward to reaffirm the fact a Prince who was potty, is now a King who is still potty, and is still dangerously so.
When he was Prince Charles he was criticized a lot over the years, including for claiming how ‘crucial’
it is to talk to plants. He claims:
I’m
willing to bet the ancient Druids felt the same way. One
thing we must come to understand about these ‘green’ loons is this. The issue is now and
has always been, the battle between nature worshipers and worshipers of God.
Modern environmentalism is nothing more than a secular neo-pagan nature worshiping
movement that is irrational, misanthropic and morally defective, dressed up to
appear modern and science based in its approach and thinking.
I’ve
been reading R. Mark Musser’s Nazi Oaks, which outlines the
historical accuracy of my statement. The policies, philosophy and programs
promoted by the Green movement in the West, including the Prince’s, originated
in the dark mist covered forests of ancient Germania and the nature worship of
the ancient Celtic religion of the Druids, who were the educated, professional class of their culture, and, whose function
was to be the intermediaries between the gods and mankind. They would make the
decisions for their people. Sound
familiar?
In
the mid to late 1800’s German philosophers attempted to define these pagan
originated concepts into a modern philosophy, and people like Martin Heidegger,
who promoted his green claptrap well into the 20th century, helped
to develop it into codified law under the Nazis. Everything the green movement
has espoused in modern times is nothing more than a carbon copy of Nazi green
laws, including the Precautionary Principle.
It has been
claimed that the Precautionary Principle originated in the 1970's, with the
German green movement and the influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. That
may have been a strong influence for adopting it in the Maastricht treaty, but
while the origin is clearly German, the philosophy goes back much further.
According to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen in a chapter which appeared in the book “Interpreting the Precautionary Principle” edited by Tim O’Riordan and James Cameron, the
Precautionary Principle;
“evolved out of the German
Socio-legal tradition, created in the heyday of democratic socialism in the
1930’s, centering on the concept of good household management. This was
regarded as a constructive partnership between the individual, the economy and
the state to manage change so as to improve the lot of both society and the
natural world upon which it deepened for survival. This invested the
precautionary principle with a managerial or programmable quality, a purposeful
role in guiding future political and regularity action.
In short,
under the concept of Precautionary Principle, which no matter what is
claimed
is virtually indefinable in the real world, or if you will, unendingly
re-definable according to someone's whims, was codifying central
planning for
everything by elitists bureaucrats that “know best” for everyone and who
would
make all the decisions using ‘saving the planet’ as a theme to justify
tyranny.
Remember who ran Germany in the 1930’s? Adolph Hitler! A monstrous
incompetent whose:
“Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick
considered those who were mentally ill, incurable sick or handicapped to be
useless eaters”. He was one of the primary authors of Nazi euthanasia law.
Accordingly his contribution to “Nazism
was to envisage the monstrous and
cloak it in law”.
Please keep
that sentence in mind as we go along. The Prince has
been quoted as saying:
"I got a lot of flak for a lot of things”….."I
mean, potty this, potty that, loony this, loony that."
Well, maybe there’s
a reason for those expressed views. They're accurate!
This is a
future monarch who privately ‘consorts’ with government ministers to promote
his pet policies, including his views on climate change, modern agricultural
practices, genetically modified organisms, which he claims:
“despite all
evidence to the contrary, will lead to mass extinction of our species”.
And he knew this how? If all the evidence was to the contrary, how does he justify saying all that will lead to the extinction of our species? One
journalist, Jeff Randall, suggested to the Prince that the future of farming
perhaps should be with industrial-scale production, the Prince 'exploded'
saying:
'That would be the complete destruction of everything!'
Okay, and just how is that destruction to come about, and what is the "everything" he's so worried about? Just like all these leftist loons he's strong on emotional and rhetoric, but stunningly low on facts, and/or specifics. If he wasn't a royal would any rational person listen to anything he says? And yet after all his blathering over the years he was
frustrated because no one in government will go along with his ‘potty’ views on things like
'complementary medicine’, which would include coffee enemas as a cure for
cancer. Coffee enemas for a cure for cancer, imagine that.
Quite frankly, before Prince Charles, I never understood why the British has a Constitutional Monarchy that’s not
permitted to express opinions, privately or publicly. Now I know.
It’s claimed Charles isn’t an unkind man, in fact it appears just the opposite according
to one writer, but the caliber of his mind must be called into question. It’s
been said:
“If you are waiting to be the
King of the United Kingdom, and you’ve waited a very long time, you genuinely
have to engage with something or you’d go spare.”
Well, perhaps that’s the
problem. This is man who has lived an amazingly privileged life, for which he
did nothing to earn, and desperately desires to be meaningful. Well, he chose
poorly, and from my viewpoint, he’s a failure, and I think that's the way he'll go down in history!
One
writer noted;
“While he is always accorded the reputation of
being a 'progressive', in fact, he is a spectacularly reactionary figure, whose
ideal vision of Britain is a kind of pre-industrial paradise — which never
existed.“
There
are a number of things we know for sure. The policies Charles promotes are:
“renewable energy only, no
pesticides, no industrial-scale farming — would lead to a crippling increase in
the prices of everything from home heating to the cereal we feed our children.”
“The point is that all the technological advances the Prince detests have been
designed to reduce the cost of living for the public. Yes, the companies that
make those breakthroughs are motivated above all by the desire to increase
profits — but that does not make their achievements contemptible. “
As
for Nobel-Prize winner Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution which saved untold
millions in India - the Prince denounced it. Truth is the sublime convergence
of history and reality, and the ‘self sufficient and sustainable’ practices the
Prince promotes “slaughtered millions of populations on the subcontinent”. Is
it possible he can’t be aware of that? That’s a historical fact he must be
aware of. The Prince is, as all the
world’s leaders, at the center of the information world. How can he be unaware of the history of what occurred
before modern agriculture?
Norman Borlaug was what Prince Charles would love to be: A truly great man! Who may
have been the greatest man to live in the 20th century for his
“Green Revolution”, possibly saving the lives of a billion people from
starvation. A man who earned all the accolades accorded to him including the
Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold
Medal and India’s second highest civilian honor, the Padma Vibhushan.
When Borlaug's work has been
challenged by these prominent pampered people like the Prince he states:
'They have never
experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid
the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged
that fashionable elitists were trying to deny them these things.”
Charles is dangerous in a number of ways because he has a platform on the world's stage:
- He’s is either historically
ignorant, or chooses to be.
- He is
intellectually and scientifically ignorant, or chooses to be.
- He must be morally clueless, and
clearly chooses to be.
- He’s chosen to ignore the history and science showing
all his views are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
Charles and his misanthropic cohorts make the claim they’re saving the
planet, but
the reality is they’re codifying or attempting to codify laws that would
be
monstrous to billions of people. They’re not saving the planet they’re
attempting
to impose a worldwide government that will plan and execute laws at the
expense
of the people living on it. The number one thought that's shared by all
these greenies is there are too many people on the planet. The
'moderates' among them wish to eliminate between four and five billion
people. The minority wishes for mankind to cease to exist. The ancient druids would be totally comfortable with the modern green movement since they share the need for human sacrifice.
Just like the Nazis, the green movement, along with the wealthy elite pushing these insane initiatives, "envisage the monstrous and
cloak it in law”. I've often wondered if a man that clueless could be elected to a position of power and authority, and then I found out. Joe Biden became President of the United States.
By Craig Rucker, President CFACT