„Vládnoucí třída má školy a tisk pod palcem. To umožňuje hýbat pocity davů.“ (Albert Einstein)

Lord Monckton: Global Warming Story: The Greatest Transfer of Power and Wealth in Human History

Autor: -abb- | Publikováno: 14.6.2011 | Rubrika: SVĚTOVLÁDA

Rozhovor vyšel v češtině na serveru Prvnizpravy.cz - Monckton: Oteplování? Jde o byznys i světovládu


Answers by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to some questions from Mr. Adam B. Bartoš of www.prvnizpravy.cz


Lord Monckton, you belong among the prominent critics of the global warming agenda. What, in your opinion, is the true political purpose of this illogical, unbelievable modern faith in manmade global warming?


All great lies begin with a grain of truth. There is a greenhouse effect; it warms the planet; CO2 is one contributor to it; CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing; we are causing much of that increase; so we are causing some global warming. That is the grain of truth.


All of these points (with the possible exception of the notion that we are causing much of the increase in CO2 concentration) are long settled by the application of theory to observations and measurements.


Though the promoters of the global-warming scare usually address the subject in purely qualitative terms, three crucial quantitative questions are very far from settled:


  • the scientific question: How much global warming will our adding CO2 to the atmosphere cause?

  • the economic question: Will the welfare loss from the consequences of manmade global warming, particularly after the damage has been contained and minimized by focused adaptation to those consequences, be greater than the cost of trying to forestall global warming by regulating, reducing, replacing or taxing CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

  • the moral question: Is it better to spend trillions on global warming than to spend the same money on the abolition of poverty and disease worldwide?


The scientific question: How much global warming will we cause? The IPCC’s central estimate, based on today’s rate of emissions of CO2, is that the world will warm by 3.4 Celsius degrees in the next 90 years, in response to 8 Watts per square metre of radiative forcing (i.e. greenhouse gases trapping in the atmosphere radiation that would otherwise have escaped to space). Thus the transient-climate-sensitivity parameter for the 21st century is 3.4/8 = 0.425 C° W–1 m2. We multiply any given radiative forcing by that parameter to obtain the 21st-century warming that the forcing will cause.


How much of the 3.4 C° global warming predicted by the IPCC for the 21st century will be caused by CO2? The IPCC’s central estimate is that CO2 concentration will rise from 390 ppmv today to 836 ppmv by 2100, so the warming it will cause over the period if we make no cuts in emissions will be 0.425 times 5.35 times the natural logarithm of (836/390). Thus, a central estimate of the maximum warming we could possibly forestall if the entire world ceased to emit CO2 today is 1.7 C°. That is all.


However, there are many problems with the IPCC’s prediction:


  • First, even though CO2 emissions are rising, CO2 concentration is rising far more slowly than the IPCC had predicted, for reasons it admits it cannot explain. It is now unlikely that the CO2 concentration in 2100 will reach the IPCC’s lower bound of 730 ppmv. Yet we shall adopt that lower bound.


  • Secondly, there has been 0.72 C° of global warming since 1950, but this measured result may be a considerable exaggeration, for two reasons. First, we know that the tropical mid-troposphere, around 10 km above the surface, should warm thrice as fast as the tropical surface. However, measurement seems to show the tropical mid-troposphere and the surface warming at the same rate. We know that the dozen mid-troposphere datasets, obtained by satellites and by radiosondes, are reliable, for all but one of them show the same result. Also, since there are few temperature gradients at altitude in the tropics, only a small number of sampling points give us a good and reliable time-series of temperature change in the mid-troposphere. We infer that the surface measurements are overstating warming threefold, probably because there are many temperature gradients caused – for instance – by convection, and there are too few surface sampling points to obtain a reliable picture. Secondly, there is a statistically-significant correlation between regional rates of economic growth and regional rates of warming: so much so that over land temperatures are in fact rising only half as fast as measurements suggest, because the compilers of the datasets are making insufficient allowance for what is called the urban heat-island effect. Combining the effects of these two errors, the amount of warming over the past 60 years may have been as little as 0.4 C°. There has been approximately 2 W m–2 of radiative forcing from long-lived greenhouse gases since 1950, offset by around 0.5 W m–2 of net-negative radiative forcing from other anthropogenic influences on the climate. So the climate-sensitivity parameter over the period could have been as little as 0.25 C° W–1 m2, or little more than half of the IPCC’s estimate.


  • Thirdly, the maximum rate of warming that occurred for more than a decade over the entire 161 years of the global instrumental temperature record was equivalent to just 0.16 C° per decade. The IPCC’s central estimate of the average rate of warming over the next 90 years, at 0.38 C° per decade, is 2.4 times this rate.


  • Fourthly, the 0.16 C°-per-decade rate of warming has occurred on three occasions in the past 161 years: from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940, and again from 1976-2001. We could not have been responsible for any measurable warming in the first two periods; yet the rate of warming in the third period is no greater than in the previous two. For this reason, the IPCC’s assertion that, with 90% confidence, most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic seems dubious and ill founded. Nevertheless, let us generously assume that half of the warming was indeed anthropogenic. In that event, our climate-sensitivity parameter for the period falls from 0.25 to 0.125 C° W–1 m2. For the sake of being agreeable, let us call it 0.2 C° W–1 m2 to allow for the gradual growth of the transient-climate-sensitivity parameter over a full century.


Combining these four results, the warming caused by CO2 over the coming century could be as little as 0.2 times 5.35 times the logarithm of (730/390): in other words, not the 1.73 C° that is the IPCC’s implicit central estimate but just 0.67 C°.


We may have been less generous than we should have been at some points in the calculation, and more generous that we should have been at others: however, if we remove the exaggerations built into the IPCC’s calculations, our own calculations based not on modelling but upon the observed climate since 1950 demonstrate how unlikely it is that the warming caused by CO2 will amount to more than 1 C° over the coming 90 years.


Removing the IPCC’s exaggerations removes the climate problem.


The economic question: Is it cheaper to regulate CO2 or to adapt to the consequences of the warming it causes? The Stern Report is to climate economics as the IPCC’s assessment reports are to climate science. It concludes that the cost of doing nothing will be 5-20% of 21st-century GDP. However, it makes two fundamental mistakes. First, its central estimate is that there will be 5 C° of warming over the next century – half as much again as the IPCC’s central estimate, and seven and a half times our own estimate. Secondly, it adopts a time-preference discount rate of only 0.1%, when HM Treasury’s usual rate is 3.5%. Adjusting for the correct discount rate brings the welfare loss from total inaction down to around 2% of 21st-century GDP, which is consistent with the peer-reviewed economic literature (Stern’s report was not peer-reviewed). Accordingly, we know the upper bound on the cost of any present or proposed policy to mitigate CO2 emissions: if the equivalent cost is more than 2% of 21st-century GDP, then economically speaking the policy is not worth implementing.


Let us look at a mitigation policy directly relevant to the Czech Republic, though not in any way under its control. The European Union’s unelected Kommissars control its environmental policies, and have decreed that there shall be carbon trading. The World Bank estimates the cost of EU carbon trading at US $92 billion a year. After discounting at 3.5%, that is just shy of $900 billion over ten years.


The policy is intended to cut emissions in the EU by 20% in 10 years. Yet, even if this reduction is achieved, the policy will forestall just 0.003 C° of global warming over the ten-year period, at a mitigation cost-effectiveness approaching US $300 trillion per Celsius degree of warming forestalled.


If all measures to forestall global warming over the period were this cost-ineffective, almost 10% of global GDP over the period would be consumed solely on climate mitigation. That is five times the cost of the welfare loss arising from doing nothing at all about the climate over the period. Accordingly, the EU carbon trading scam is cost-ineffective.


We have excluded the very heavy cost of all the other EU measures to mitigate global warming over the period, such as windmills, solar panels, carbon taxes, fuel duty increases, etc, as well as the cost of the market distortion and consequent job destruction that carbon trading is already causing. By the same token, we have also excluded any co-benefits that may be associated with carbon trading (though it is hard to imagine any substantial co-benefits).


We can apply the same considerations to individual projects. For instance, the largest wind farm in the world is the Thanet array, off the coast of Kent. The $2 billion subsidy for this one wind farm, if redeployed to support a nuclear power station, could have provided 13 times the electricity for twice the wind farm’s 20-year lifetime, paying back the subsidy in full. However, the windfarm will forestall 0.00002 C° of global warming. Its mitigation cost-effectiveness is almost one quadrillion dollars per Celsius degree of warming forestalled. Forestalling all CO2-driven warming expected over the period by measures as cost-ineffective as Thanet would consume more than a quarter of global GDP to 2030.


We conclude that the cost of forestalling global warming greatly exceeds the cost of doing nothing about it.


The moral question: Is it really better to spend trillions on regulating CO2 emissions rather than spending the same on alleviating poverty and curing disease in the developing countries?


Given that there is no scientific case for concern, and that even if there were a climate problem any attempt at mitigation would be extravagantly cost-ineffective, there is no point in diverting trillions from programmes to address poverty and disease to the supposedly greater problem of global warming. The opportunity cost of this cruel diversion of resources is enormous.


Take one example: the diversion of millions of hectares of agricultural land worldwide from growing food for people who need it to growing biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The result, as a recent World Bank report makes plain, has been a doubling of world food prices. To us, it is inconvenient that a burger once costing $0.99 now costs $1.99. But to a poor person in Haiti, staying alive by eating mud pies made with real mud, an increase in the price of a mud pie from 3 US cents to 6 cents is all too often the difference between life and death.


This is what Herr Jean Ziegler, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, had to say about the biofuel scam:


When millions are starving, it is a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels.”


A crime against humanity. Reading those words, one should realize that it is the sceptics, not the true-believers in the New Superstition of manmade climate catastrophe, who command the moral high ground.


Is global warming a great bogeyman created to facilitate population control along the lines suggested by the Club of Rome?


Among the coalition of powerful vested interests profiting from the climate scare – bankers, businessmen, utility companies, journalists, broadcasters, politicians, bureaucrats, schoolteachers, academics, scientists – a goodly proportion lazily share the packaged opinions of the hard Left, including the notion that there are too many people and that there should be controls on breeding in poorer countries.


This frankly racialist policy is, however, as unnecessary as it is repugnant. It is now becoming evident that as living standards rise birth rates fall. Peak population is now expected to be just 9 billion in 2050, falling precipitately thereafter.


All of the Club of Rome’s predictions of disaster have proven incorrect. That will not stop the hate-filled, doctrinaire Left from adhering to its dismal policies. However, now that Canada, Russia and Japan have joined the United States in saying that they do not propose to proceed to a second round of emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that the Left, which had nailed its colours too firmly to the mast of the now-sinking ship that is climate alarmism, may be so discredited that their anti-population, anti-family, anti-Western, anti-democracy, anti-humanity policies will be discredited also, and the world will be a happier place for that.


Is the global warming scare the road to global governance? Is the IPCC some kind of global ministry of the environment?


Sir Maurice Strong, a billionaire UN bureaucrat, made the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a political rather than a scientific body because, as he admitted more than a quarter of a century ago, his ambition was that the IPCC would turn itself into a world government.


The failed 15 September 2009 draft of the Copenhagen Treaty contained the following passages, demonstrating the intention of the UN’s bureaucracy to establish a global government with massive powers of enforcement (code-named a “facilitative mechanism”) and of taxation. The free market was to be abolished, and its rules set in future by the world “government”:

  • The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism …’

  • The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. …’

  • ‘… a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate …’

Taxes contemplated in the draft were a wealthy-nations tax at 2% of GDP and also a 2% tax on all financial transactions to pay for more than 300 new bureaucracies. The “government” was to be given the power to interfere directly in the economies of individual nation states, and in their environmental affairs, and to impose a worldwide carbon trading regime. Under the “facilitative mechanism” there would have been unlimited fines for any nation that failed to obey the will of the “government”. The words “democracy”, “ballot” and “vote” did not appear once in the 186 pages of the draft.

Though that draft failed, the Cancun Treaty enacted much of the Copenhagen draft, upping the number of new bureaucracies from 300 to almost 1000. These bureaucracies are already being created, providing the machinery of a world-scale government for the first time. Not one major news medium reported what was actually in the Cancun agreement.


Is business backing the climate scare?


Yes. Bankers and stock traders are lining up to profit from what the boys in red braces on the London Stock Exchange call “trading hot air”. Insurance companies are doing their best to extract monstrous premiums on the ground that worldwide catastrophe is just around the corner (so far, they are not getting the extra premiums they had hoped for, though they are producing lurid colour brochures to try to frighten their clients).


Electricity companies are profiting mightily because previously governments told them to hold their prices down, but now they are being told to put prices up in the hope of reducing consumption and thus Saving The Planet. As a bribe they are being allowed to keep nearly all the extra money. Oil companies profit in a similar way.


Industries making windmills and solar panels, and scientific research companies, are also benefiting directly through subsidies.


Lobbying companies are making fortunes out of the scare, and so are the allegedly “non-profit” environmental groups, now largely funded by taxpayers’ money.


With all these gainers, who loses? As always, it is the little guy who loses.


Under the pietistic pretext of ‘Saving The Planet’, the greatest transfer of power and wealth in human history is furtively gathering pace – from the poor to the rich, from the weak to the strong, from the powerless to the powerful, from the risk-taker to the rent-seeker, from the worker to the boardroom, from the taxpayer to the bureaucrat, from the sans-culottes and the tricoteuses to the classe politique, from the governed to their grasping governors, from national democracies to global dictatorship.


This unjustifiable empowerment of the powerful, this gross enrichment of the rich, this menace to freedom and democracy, this dagger aimed at the very heart of the West, must now be destroyed.


Recently, the media have begun talking of “climate change” instead of “global warming”. There has also been some mention of “global cooling”. What are they trying to tell us?


The news media, too, greatly profit by the global warming scam. They can sell more papers and win more viewers and listeners, and hence gain more advertising revenue, by churning out exciting headlines that scream World to End! than by drafting dull headlines that tell the truth: Climate continues changeable.


The smarter journalists have realized that the “global warming” story does not add up, and that the world is simply not warming fast enough to justify all the hype and the massive extra costs. So they have decided to use the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming”. Then the cold winter in western Europe last year (the second-coldest in Britain since 1659) can be blamed on climate change. Floods? Climate change. Droughts? Climate change.


The still smarter journalists have realised that the climate has actually been changing for 4,567 million years, ever since the Earth formed. So they – like the Bilderberg Group last year – are beginning to talk about “global cooling”. That would be far worse than global warming. An increase of 5 C° in global temperatures would not do very much harm, but a decrease of that amount would plunge us back into a new ice age. So, for the more perceptive journalists, global cooling is a far more interesting concept than global warming. It allows them to keep the scare stories coming, and make them even more scary than the global warming stories. The next Ice Age is already 6000 years overdue. It could happen at any time. Of course, we have no idea when it will come, but in the meantime the news media can profit by writing stories about what it will be like when it does.


Could you say something about geo-engineering? For example, Mr. Griffin, a famous author from the USA, in his recent documentary What in the world are they spraying?, presented his conviction that governments were spraying chemicals from aircraft all around the world in the hope of fighting global warming. What do you think about this?


I have never understood why people who see the condensation-trails caused by aircraft flying at altitude think that what they are really seeing is chemicals being sprayed over them by secret government aircraft. These con-trails have been a feature of flying ever since the earliest days, and there are famous photographs of the trails left all over the skies of southern Britain by the dog-fights between Spitfires and Messerschmidts during the Second World War.


As far as I can discover, no programme of large-scale chemical spraying – other than routine crop-dusting – is taking place anywhere in the world. There have been some localized experiments in seeding the clouds with silver iodide in the hope of inducing rain during droughts, but that is about as far as it goes.


In theory it would be possible to spray particulate matter from aircraft in the hope that the particles would each act as a tiny umbrella sheltering the world beneath from the rays of the Sun. However, it would be far simpler and less costly simply to relax the pollution regulations a little, allowing particulate matter that is now scrubbed out before fossil-fuel emissions go up the chimney to be released to the atmosphere as it was 50 years ago. Because this would be the easiest and cheapest route, and because I can think of no sensible reason why any government would want to keep secret the measures it was taking to make global warming go away, I do not think it at all likely that there is any widespread spraying by governments that we do not know about.


Do you have some experience with geoengineering programs from the House of Lords in Great Britain, of which you are a member?


I am a member of the House, but without the right to sit or vote, and the authorities like to say that I am not a member at all. I have indeed met several people who have ideas about geoengineering, but most of the ideas are very expensive and few of them would make very much difference to global temperature. It has been suggested, for instance, that all roofs and roads and paved areas should be treated with reflective paint to send as much sunlight as possible back into space. However, as with all measures to prevent global warming, the cost would be prohibitive and the warming prevented would be negligible.


I should be very interested in your view of the arrest and killing of Usama bin Ladin. You may have heard the opinion of Mr. Petr Hájek, a colleague of President President Vaclav Klaus, who told that all that story about Al-Qaida and Usama Bin Ladin is media mystification and that we cannot know what really happened in Pakistan. He is very sceptical of the official version of this story.


For entirely understandable reasons, the people do not trust their politicians. After all, the politicians pretend that they believe global warming is the worst threat facing the human race, and most people now know that this is a monstrous overstatement. So I can quite understand why people are suspicious of the official account of the killing of Usama Bin Ladin. However, I have no information that suggests the US authorities are not telling the truth.


My concern is that as a result of the 9/11 attacks and the West’s reaction to them great and lasting damage may have been done to relations between the West and the Muslim world. This is unfortunate.


Notwithstanding the difficulties posed by extremist preachers, radicalization even of Western Muslim youths and the consequent growth of Islamic terrorism, it is important that we continue to show Christian love of those who say they hate us, however difficult that may be.


We should try to reach an accommodation with the less extreme factions of Islam in the hope of isolating and eventually neutralizing the troublemakers.


Great Britain is the close ally of USA in the war against terror, but is the war against terror not a largely-fictitious bogeyman like global warming? Can it really be true that we have been chasing some bearded figure with a Kalashnikov for ten years, believing that he is a great danger to our freedom? Or is it really an excuse to restrict our freedoms?


I suspect that the war against terror will always have to be waged. We depend heavily on our security services to find out about threats to our safety before anyone can do us harm. That is difficult and costly work. Of course I can understand that some will suspect that an artificial enemy has been created for the purpose of persuading us that the hundreds of billions now spent on our security forces are hundreds of billions well spent. However, the 9/11 events were real events. Two aircraft, at the behest of Islamic terrorists who had taken control of them, flew into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and killed 3000 people.


The network of support for such a major operation against the West was extensive, and we now know it by the name Al-Qaida. Whether any or all of its adherents call it that, the network certainly existed and much of it may still exist. It is just one of many potential threats to our liberty and democracy. Over-hyped global warming alarmism is another. The EU in its present irreformably anti-democratic guise is a third.


As Edmund Burke once said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. As Monckton of Brenchley has been heard to remark, “Eternal vigilance is expensive, but it is a lot cheaper than the cost of letting our guard down.”


I am interested in your membership in the Knights of Malta. What led you to that order and what is your work for this order?


My late beloved father was the President of the British Association of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, whose headquarters is now in Rome. The current Grand Master of the Knights, Fra Matthew Festing, is an old friend of mine from Cambridge.


The Order raises some $200 million every year for charitable works of many kinds in some 140 countries, concentrating chiefly on care for the sick and the poor. In the Congo, for instance, the Knights have built 285 km of roads so that in a district where there are no helicopters sick people can be driven to hospital in ambulances. In Germany, the volunteer ambulancemen who attend sporting and other major events are members of the Malteser Hilfsdienst, which was founded and is administered by the Knights.


The Order plays no political role at all: it was founded by Brother Gerard in Jerusalem in 1099 (which makes it the oldest charity in the world), and the job of the Knights was to defend Brother Gerard’s hospital from attacks by either side so that the sick from both sides in the Crusades could be properly cared for.


My own role in the Order is very limited because for 25 years, until just three years ago, I was a very sick man, and I nearly died on several occasions. But I am slowly getting back to work and am hoping to do more for the Order in the next few years, starting with attending the Order’s annual pilgrimages to Lourdes to give severely handicapped people a holiday.


You attended the congress of the Free Citizens’ Party yesterday. What was your message for this party and for the people of the Czech Republic at that meeting?


The full text of my remarks (which were kindly received with a standing ovation) was as follows:


Europe is democratic and free or it is nothing. Today, it is nothing. Tomorrow, if our will becomes the way, Europe will again be free.

For me, one of the happiest chapters in the history of the continent we love was Listopad.

During those great events of November 1989, what a brave and glorious example your great nation set to all who would reform the wicked world!

To the Communist security forces who had stood for generations between your nation and its freedom, your young people offered not violence but flowers.

Political power, said one of Marxism’s cruellest dictators, grows out of the barrel of a gun. That sordid dictum was proven wrong forever when flower power defeated brute force, and freedom triumphed here.

I wear a flower in my buttonhole today to honour those young heroes whose courage and idealism set your nation free.

Or did they?

Of course I understand why the Czech Republic joined the European Union. You had the most powerful reasons to express your heartfelt desire no longer to look fearfully eastward towards the tyranny, poverty and slavery that you had endured for generations, but instead to gaze hopefully westward towards the democracy, prosperity and freedom you had hoped to find in Europe.

Our nation shared your nation’s opinion the last time we were consulted on the European question. In 1975, a third of a century ago, in the only referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU that was ever held, two-thirds of us voted to belong. I was one of them.

Not any more.

Neither I nor most of Her Majesty’s subjects would dream of voting to remain as members of the European Union as it is today.

  • Directives issued every three hours, day and night, from behind closed doors by unelected Kommissars: they even have – and all too often use – the power to issue “Commission Regulations” that have the immediate force of supreme law throughout our continent regardless of the opinion of any elected parliament.

  • A lavishly toothless talking-shop laughably called a “parliament”: its members do not even have the power to bring forward a Bill. Only the Kommissars can propose European laws.

  • Over-regulation that is as stifling as it is absurd: whatever is not interdit is obligatoire.

  • Mickey-Mouse money that was fabricated not as a currency but as a dismal instrument of political centralization: as many of us had predicted from the outset, the euro is now doomed to collapse.

The formidable free-market economist who is the great president of your great nation is one of the few true European visionaries of our age.

I have a job for your President. He has already used his tact and skill peacefully to dismantle one currency union. That was the practice round.

Now it is time for him to undertake a greater task in the interest of us all. He must dismantle another currency union, before it destroys itself and takes Europe with it.

No political constitution deserves to survive if under that constitution there is one law for the lawgivers and another law for everyone else.

The Treaty of Maastricht is one of the untidy heap of prolix, diffuse, obscurantist screeds that constitute – for good or ill – the supreme law of Europe. It was and is supposed to apply as much to those who govern us as to those whom they govern.

Yet the Brussels Politburo had never had the slightest intention of abiding by its own treaty. As, the discredited constitution of the collapsed Soviet Union moved inexorably westward, all of its essential elements were incorporated into the constitution of Europe.

Not the least of these toxic ingredients was the immunity of the Kommissars from any obligation to comply with the laws that they inflict upon everyone else.

Sensibly enough, the Maastricht treaty laid down the minimum criteria with which nations wishing to adopt the new currency of Europe must comply so as to demonstrate sufficient economic convergence to allow the currency union to function at all.

After the treaty was passed, it rapidly became clear that very few of Europe’s nations came close to complying with those necessary convergence criteria.

Yet the euro was rushed into being anyway. It was one of the key steps in the Sovietization of Europe. At the time, only one nation complied with the convergence criteria laid down in the treaty. That was Luxembourg.

Like the Kommissars of the Kremlin, their custard-faced successors in the Berlaymont thought they could scorn the treaty they had themselves made and repeal the rules of economics by pressing forward with their Toytown currency in flagrant and economically disastrous defiance of the their own criteria.

The bankruptcy of many Euro-zone countries was a direct and ineluctable consequence of the Kommissars’ vainglorious folly. It is no accident that not one of the three most prosperous nations on the continent of Europe is a member state of the European Union.

How did it come to this? How did the continent that invented democracy and gave it its very name come so suddenly and so sullenly to turn its back on its great heritage of liberty?

The central elements of the current European constitutional disposition were foreshadowed by Adolf Hitler in chapter 4 of part II of Mein Kampf:

  • Expurgation from all the leading circles in government of the parliamentary principle. Hitler wrote: “There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons” … From the municipal administration up to the supreme government, “there will be no body of representatives which makes its decisions through the majority vote.”

  • Exercise of all real political power by what Hitler described as “the best brains”. He wrote: “The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence.”

  • Retention of parliaments purely in a consultative capacity, and as an “opportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrusted subsequently with positions of special responsibility … No vote will be taken in the Parliament. It is to be an organization for work and not a voting machine. The individual members will have consultative votes but no right of decision will be attached thereto.” The right of decision, said Hitler, belongs exclusively to the supreme government, “which must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.” 

Hitler ends his consideration of the future of European government with these chilling words:

Regarding the possibility of putting these principles into practice, I should like to call attention to the fact that the principle of parliamentary democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always been periods of decline in nations and States.”

This is the continent which spawned and then defeated Marx. This is the continent which brought forth and then defeated Hitler. Why, then, are the free citizens of our continent compelled to exist under a constitutional disposition so irreformably anti-democratic that it embodies so much from the political systems of Communism and Fascism?

You may imagine that any comparison between today’s European Union and the vicious tyrannies of the past is inappropriate. You may consider that calling the Brussels regime a Fascist or Communist police state is unduly extreme.

If you think these things, let me tell you a story. When you have heard it, think again.

Two years ago a British citizen who had set up a business in another EU member state went bankrupt owing 30,000 euros when his business failed. He returned to the UK with his wife and two children to start again.

However, the Hungarian police decided that his business failure had been fraudulent and issued a European Arrest Warrant for him.

At 3 o’clock in the morning, Britain’s equivalent of the KGB – the Serious Organized Crime Agency – kicked in his door, dragged him from his bed and took him to London, where, without any chance to prepare his case, he was dragged in front of a Supreme Court judge.

At no time did the Hungarian police specify any particulars of any offence which they alleged against their victim. The procedure for the European Arrest Warrant did not oblige them to do so. To this day, the accused has not been given any details of what he is thought to have done wrong.

The judge said that under the rules he was not allowed to make any enquiries about whether the accused had committed any offence, or what the particulars of the offence were, or whether there was any prima facie evidence against him, or even whether the Hungarian prosecutor was ready to bring him to trial.

The judge said that under the EU rules he had no option but to allow rendition of the accused to Hungary. There, for four months, the accused was incarcerated in a filthy jail. Throughout that time, was fed on nothing but rancid pork fat three times a day.

The accused contacted a Conservative member of the European Parliament, and received this reply:

“If the Hungarian authorities consider you guilty of a crime, then you are guilty and I will not lift a finger to help you.”

For very nearly 800 years it has been the right of any British subject not to be punished or imprisoned except upon due process of law, including the right to know what he is accused of and to answer the charges publicly in court.

Not any more.

The right of habeas corpus, a fundamental right that Britain exported to many nations, is now no longer the free citizen’s right in Britain or anywhere else in the European Union.

Next, the accused contacted my noble friend the Earl of Dartmouth, a member of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom Independence Party. William Dartmouth at once contacted the Hungarian authorities and demanded immediate access to the accused.

The Hungarians moved the accused from prison to prison in the hope that William Dartmouth would give up. He did not give up. He insisted on meeting the accused. On discovering that the accused had been fed nothing but pork fat for four months, he insisted that the accused be released at once. The Hungarians hastily complied, turning the accused out on to the street at an hour’s notice with no money and only the clothes he stood up in.

It has now come to light that the Hungarians were not ready to put the accused on trial at the time when they applied to the United Kingdom for their wretched European Arrest Warrant. They are still not ready to try the accused. Therefore, their original application for the warrant was in fundamental breach of the law of Europe.

More importantly, their failure to feed him properly constitutes torture at United Kingdom law. Accordingly, I can now announce that it is at present the intention of the United Kingdom Independence Party to apply for European Arrest Warrants for the Hungarian Foreign Minister, the Minister of Justice and the governor of the jail, so that they will be brought to trial in the United Kingdom for the serious imprisonable offence of torture, which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.

Don’t hold your breath, though. There is one law for us and another for Them.

Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says this: “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

In short, no one except those whom the people have elected may make laws for the free citizens of the United States or inflict taxes upon them. That central principle that there should be no legislation and no taxation without representation is the cornerstone of that great Constitution, and it ought to be the cornerstone of liberty once again here in Europe.

If the citizens of Europe are once again to be free, either the constitution of Europe must be reformed to make it recognizably democratic or the European Union must be abolished.

We, the free citizens of Europe, will no longer endure the corrupt and stifling tyranny-by-clerk that is today’s European Union. Its future lies in the past. Its wilful and persistent refusal to allow us any meaningful democracy is not acceptable. It must go.

I was born in a democracy. I do not live in one. But I intend to die in one.

Next week the Bilderberg Group, a strange organization, will meet in St. Moritz, Switzerland. Should we worry about these mighty politicians, bankers and businessmen talking and making plans behind closed doors with huge security measures? What can you say about these people? I believe they are the people behind the global warming story. Do you agree that they are very dangerous for nation-states?

The Bilderberg Group is in fact harmless. It consists largely of retired politicians and businessmen who meet once a year to discuss world events. Since it is an organization which, by its nature, seeks consensus, the vast majority of those who attend will be likely to find it socially convenient to go along with the global warming scare, whether they really believe it or not.

No, I do not think the Bilderberg Group caused the global warming scare. It would probably be flattered to hear that anyone thought it had that much influence, for in truth it is a toothless body whose main value is as a forum for the exchange of ideas among people many of whom no longer have any direct influence over the making of policy.

The global warming scare was constructed partly by the UN, partly by the Democratic party in the US, partly by a small group of malevolent scientists based mainly in the US and partly by some suspiciously well-funded environmental groups.


What could you say about the Bilderbergers’ argument that the nation state is no longer valid and we need to organize regional governments like the EU, or even global governments?


The nation state of course continues to play a vital role, and will always do so. At the same time, it is a truism that what one nation does within its borders can have effects far beyond its own borders, perhaps even global effects. For instance, the emission of CO2 by one nation will have an effect (though I think it will be a small and largely beneficial effect) on all nations.


Therefore it is a matter of common sense that nations should talk to one another both on a regional and on a global scale. However, there is one major problem. Increasingly, nations are not merely talking to one another: they ceding their powers to supranational entities on a regional scale, such as the EU, and also on a global scale, such as the UN, the Law of the Sea conference, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, etc. Because no supranational body is elected by universal secret ballot of the regional or global population, every such transfer of power from a democratic nation state such as the Czech Republic is a transfer from elected hands to unelected hands. The more power is transferred away from nation states, therefore, the more democracy dies: and it dies worldwide.


The solution is simple. The governing council of every supranational or global entity that is by treaty entitled to exercise real power should be regularly elected by the peoples of the nations that are parties to the treaty. Those supranational or global entities unwilling to submit to government of the people, by the people and for the people should be dismantled and all members of their governing councils should be debarred from ever holding any public office anywhere in the world again. The rule for all supranational or global governing powers should be straightforward: no election, no power.

For instance, the EU is unacceptable not because it is supranational (some functions, though not as many as the EU has grabbed, are better done at supranational level), nor because it is full of foreigners (with Tacitus, I say nil humanum a me alienum puto), but because all real power is in the hands of unelected Kommissars (the official German name for European Commissioners). The supreme lawmaking power in Europe should be transferred to the elected parliament of Europe, and all the officials of the EU (of whom there are far too many) should be answerable to Europe’s parliament, and through it to the peoples of Europe.

What are our gallant troops fighting for, as they struggle for us on freedom’s furthest frontiers? They are surely fighting for the freedom and democracy that our ancestors won for us over the past 1000 years. Let me end with the peroration of perhaps the greatest political speech of all time, spoken by the sixteenth President of the United States as he dedicated a corner of the battlefield of Gettysburg to the troops who had fallen there in the fight for the future of their nation:

It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us: that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”

(pozn. redakce: redakce nesouhlasí s některými tvrzeními v rozhovoru, která vidí jako problematická. Je to například snižování významu skupiny Bilderberg či Moncktonovo přesvědčení o platnosti oficiální verze 11/9. Nepravdivé je například Moncktonovo ujišťování, že na Bilderbergu se schází političtí důchodci, kteří už nemají vliv v současné politice - opak je pravdou, řada významných politiků se do svých pozic dostala právě s požehnáním Bilderbergu a na jejích konferencích započala svoji kariéru. Bilderberg tudíž "schvaluje" a vybírá budoucí klíčové politické figury, tedy není pravda, že by neměl páky na současnou světovou politickou scénu.)

7337 čtenářů | 
Tisknout článek Poslat článek e-mailem
Vaše hodnocení: 

Zde můžete nastavit své hodnocení

Podpořte nás
Přihlášení uživatele

Zasílání upozornění
Čtěte také


Italská mafie vyměkla. Bere i homosexuály a syn jednoho z šéfů je...Kolik zatím stála válka proti terorismu peněz i životů?Chtějí zrušit výuku hymny na základních školáchVeganství zachrání naši planetu, tvrdí slavný závodník formule 1. Dostal pádné odpovědi od svých kolegů (+ foto)Švédská vláda ztratila kontrolu nad zemí: 120 pumových útoků za půl roku. Integrace migrantů v praxi


Motivace některých dnes hodně slyšitelných kovidových alarmistů je velmi sporná, ne-li rovnou cynicky sobeckáKoronavirus v přímém přenosu


V polovině případů v České republice zločinci za znásilnění a sexuální delikty odejdou od soudu pouze s podmínkou, a to dokonce i v případě sexuálního zneužívání dětí! Marine Le Pen odmítá nový migrační pakt EU jako ‚sebevraždu Evropy‘


Finská poslankyně EP: EU jedná s Británií jako s vazalem. Postoj Británie by měl inspirovat další země k odchodu z EU! Expremiér: Musíme mít odvahu si přiznat, že máme problém s islámem!


Co je podstatou stárnutí? Je to cílená autodestrukce? Proč se to vyvinulo? Jak ho zpomalit, anti-aging? Tímto si můžete prodloužit životVeganka tvrdí, vejce jsou pro vaše zdraví horší než kouření. Takto to prý zjistila


Na východní frontě chaos. Obávám se, že v letošním roce musíme počítat jen s těmi nejhoršími scénáři. Na Východě, na Západě, i u nás domaNepodmíněný příjem? – Cesta do pekel


Covid? Říkal jsem to. Ivan David nenese dobré zprávy. Prymula? Ne zločin, chyba. A značí...Prymula byl symbol, teď už Babiš jen minimalizuje škody. Krizové řízení ale dnes moc nepředvedl, kroutí hlavou politolog
Aktuálně nejčtenější
Články autora
Žádné aktivní ankety nebyly nalezeny