A Prince Who Was Potty, is Now a King Who is Potty, and Dangerously So!

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 happily talk to the plants and trees, and listen to them. I think it's absolutely crucial," "Everything I've done here, it's like almost with your children. Every tree has a meaning for me."

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 20^th 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 20^th 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:

1. He’s is either historically ignorant, or chooses to be.  
2. He is intellectually and scientifically ignorant, or chooses to be.    
3. He must be morally clueless, and clearly chooses to be.
4. 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.

The Science of Homeopathy?

By Rich Kozlovich

A few years ago this article entitled, "Scientific Proof that Homeopathy Works", appeared on the Natural News web site.  I think a lot of it is looney, but occasionally there's stuff there that's worth reading.  The rest challenges you to develop the intellectual tools necessary to justify your own views.

However, the article states:

Most scientists would state categorically that homeopathy is a scientific impossibility. Who would disagree, as the explanation that is currently provided to support homeopathy makes very little sense. How is it possible that a solution that contains no chemical atoms causes a biological reaction? All of our basic understanding of science screams out that this is patently impossible."   

 The article later goes on to attempt to refute this by saying: 

"As an example, in one experiment, if you treated a cup of water with a specific vibrational frequency the water would change itself to that specific vibration and it would stay like that forever. It would only change if it came across a different vibration. This vibrated water if ingested directly and instantly affects our body's biological functions. Depending on the vibrational frequency of the water, different illnesses can be treated.  

This is their "proof" for accepting for what passes as science among the “All Naturals”. I am inclined to think they need a whole lot more than this before they call this "proof".

I am more than happy to believe pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to alter their perceptions and actions because of financial concerns.

I am also willing to agree that doctors are among the most hardened when it comes to making changes, especially in today’s litigious climate.

I also willing to accept the medical and scientific communities will cling to concepts that have been largely failing for two reasons.

• One, they just don't know enough yet.
• Two, they continue to fail because they refuse to look in other directions, especially when dealing with cancer.

I am also willing to acknowledge those who have promoted alternative medical procedures such as treatments based on nutritional therapy have made significant headway with medical science. I believe that we must be open to new concepts if we are to progress in any area of science.

I am also completely convinced that we could fill the Grand Canyon with the things we don’t know.

What I don't like, and I am not open to, is the idea that our collective ignorance justifies collective acceptance.

Ignorance is nothing more than a lack of knowledge. Acceptance must be based on an abundance of knowledge. Knowledge that had to fight and brawl its way into our collective database before it becomes known as truth. That is what science is all about. Otherwise it is called faith.

Finally, I find it difficult to understand why so many fail to recognize that much of what these people believe is based on mysticism with its hidden auras of power, or in this case “vibrations”!  Vibrations only they understand.

The Druids of ages past would have been very comfortable among them today.  Green, All Natural and Organic is a pseudo-pagan religious concept with some actual science thrown in to give it credibility to the honest hearted who are unaware and unsuspecting. There is little difference between them and the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear.

Is it any wonder that so many believe that undetectable, or almost undetectable levels of pesticides cause ___________(fill in the blank)? Is it any wonder that no amount of actual scientific evidence can alter their view? The wonder is the media, the political leaders and the bureaucrats, who are supposed to be only concerned with the facts, are just as enamored with this kind of thinking as these Kool-Aid drinkers. Their positions are based on emotion and a desire to "believe" and that is almost impossible to alter with mere facts.