The Trial Begins
Prince Philip's Allgemeine SS
by Jeffrey Steinberg
Most citizens of the Americas believe that Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead with virtually no political or financial power.
Nothing could be further from the truth.As the present head of the Windsor Dynasty, she is the sole sovereign head of state of the United Kingdom and 16 other states, and also exerts more subtle but equally deadly authority over the other 33 nations of the British Commonwealth.FIGURE 1
The Royal Family Tree
But the power of the House of Windsor also derives from Queen Elizabeth IPs status as the "chief executive officer" of an informal body known to some as the Club of the Isles, which combines the political and financial clout of a far more extensive combine of intermarried European royal and princely families that extends from Scandinavia to Greece.FIGURE 2
Prince Philip's Allqemeine SS
The estimated combined financial worth of the Club of the Isles is greater than $1 trillion and the holdings in which the club has controlling interest are believed to exceed $9 trillion.The world petroleum supply is dominated by the British royal household, as is much of the world's supply of precious metals and raw materials, through such "Crown jewels" as Rio Tinto Zinc, Lonrho, and DeBeers Anglo American Corp.
The Royal Consort, Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, plays a similar role in his capacity as "chief operations officer" for the Club of the Isles, and as the head of the World Wide Fund for Nature. What's more, Prince Philip is the principal public spokesman for the number one priority policy of the club: to reduce the population of the world to below 1 billion people within several generations.
To accomplish this requires genocide on a global scale exceeding the slaughter that has been unleashed against Africa over the past 35 years.To accomplish this, the executive agency directed by Prince Philip has created a powerful apparatus, an SS, made up of Royal Chartered trusts and corporations, propaganda fronts, assassination and terror agencies, etc. - the world's most efficient Murder, Inc.
Who's who in Prince Philip's Allgemeine SS
The numbers below refer to Figure 2:
The ZSL and RGS stand at the pinnacle of the British intelligence establishment. The ZSL's recent chief executives: Julian Huxley, 1935-42; Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Senior Chief of Staff for the U.K., 1950-54; Lord Solly Zuckerman, U.K. Government Chief Scientific Adviser, 1955-84; Sir Frank Chappell, the former General Commanding Officer (GOC) of the British Army, present director, member of WWF-U.K.The ZSL and RGS share the WWF's eugenics ideology, and the Darwin-Huxley tribe is omnipresent in both. Eugenics "founder" Sir Francis Galton was a major mid-19th century power in the RGS. Michael Huxley, Julian's cousin, founded its Geographical Magazine. RGS officials together with the WWF's Sir Peter Scott founded Survival International.
"The Fauna" was founded as an arm of British imperial policy under the guise of "conservation." Its founding vicepresidents, Lords Milner, Grey, Cromer, Curzon, and Minto, were all imperial proconsuls, chiefly in India and Africa.As Sir Peter Scott, FFPS chairman for most of the three decades from the 1960s until his death in 1989, noted in his history of the Fauna:
FFPS personnel have dominated the WWF and the IUCN since their founding, frequently chairing the IUCN's two key committees, the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; and the Survival Service Commission, concerned with WWF-style "species preservation," chaired for almost two decades starting in 1963 by Peter Scott.
Its staff directly plan the conservation strategies and administer the national parks systems of many former colonies today. It sees the preservation of "biodiversity" as its main mission.The IUCN president is Sir Shridath Ramphal, the former Secretary General of the British Commonwealth 1975-90; its director general, Martin Holdgate, was a senior official of the United Kingdom's Department of the Environment.
The British Commonwealth
Prince Philip's Corporate SS
by Anthony K. Wikrent and Allen Douglas
The modern multinationals typified by Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, and RTZ, which have done so much to strangle Africa and the rest of the world in the postwar period, are merely the modern, slightly disguised form of the Crown-chartered "merchant adventurer" companies of Elizabethan England and later.Like their often Venetian-sponsored Elizabethan predecessors , some of which merged to become the British East India Company in the late sixteenth century, they are granted a "royal charter" to operate globally on behalf of the Crown and its associated families. The Anglo-Dutch firm Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, so prominent in Africa and in the World Wide Fund for Nature, dates from the financial arrangements established when William of the Dutch house of Orange took the British throne in 1688, with Venetian backing.
When Africa was colonized by the European powers in the 1880s and 1890s, that process, too, was under charter from the Crown, to such companies as the Royal Niger Company, the British East Africa Company, and Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company.Today's WWF backers, particularly its "Africa division" listed below, as well as those in the flow chart on the following page, are the direct descendants of these late-nineteenth-century Crown companies, if not earlier ones, like Shell.Tiny Rowland's Lonrho Corp. is typical: As of 1990 the employer of over 100,000 people in Africa, it is the continent's major private food producer, and a powerhouse in precious metals.
In 1961, at the time Lonrho was vastly upgraded in order to subvert and destroy the emerging independent African nations, it was a subsidiary of Cecil Rhodes's still-existing British South Africa Company. And, as EIR has documented in its 1992 book, Tiny Rowland: The Ugly Face of Neocolonialism in Africa, the money and connections to launch this new British East India Co. for Africa came from City of London financier Harley Drayton and his 117 Old Broad Street Group, Crown Agents for the colonies and the managers of the private fortune of the queen.Drayton's longtime personal assistant was the Scottish aristocrat Angus Ogilvy, whose wife, Princess Alexandra of Kent, is presently the head of WWF-U.K.
From 1961 on, Rowland was the chief financier for the gangs whose genocidal wars have devastated Africa. He often financed both sides of a struggle at the same time, beginning with the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia and its black opposition around Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, continuing into his financing both the Frelimo government and its Renamo opposition in Mozambique, and both the MPLA government and its Unita opposition in Angola.
The queen is the world's wealthiest woman, with an acknowledged fortune of $ 13 billion (Harpers and Queen magazine, January 1991). In reality it is far greater, but she is exempt from having to disclose her holdings.The following entities, with major assets particularly in Africa, are politically directed by, and often substantially owned by, the Crown:
The '1001 Club' - a nature trust
by Scott Thompson
Membership in the "1001 Club," founded in 1971 by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, consort to Queen Juliana of the House of Orange, is restricted to 1,001 persons at any given time and is by invitation only.All members pay a $10,000 initiation fee which goes toward a $10 million trust to bankroll World Wildlife Fund operations. The club donated an office building in Gland, Switzerland, which currently houses the international headquarters of the WWF and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.Initial members were handpicked by Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Membership includes representatives of the royal houses of Europe, officials of British Crown corporations, and prominent figures in international organized crime.Below is a sample of current and past members with brief biographical data.
Bernhard founded the Bilderberg Society in 1953. Bilderberg sponsors annual secret meeting of North American and European "one world" elites. Bernhard co-founded the WWF in 1961. In 1976, he was caught taking a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. He resigned as head of Bilderberg, and from the WWF-International and 1001 Club.But he remains a dominant behind-the-scenes figure in all three.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Enemies of Humanity 2: Prince Philip Mountbatten (of Battenburg) - Part 2
Continuation of The Fall of the House of Windsor.
Enemies of Humanity 2: Prince Philip Mountbatten (of Battenburg) - Part 1
In this post, such is the importance of it, I reprint the article linked to in my last post: The Fall of the House of Windsor. Due to its size, I have split the article into parts.
The article details how Prince Philip has been instrumental, via his work in the field of animal conservation, in waging a war of genocide against populations in Africa and elsewhere.
The man equates Human Beings with animals who have to be culled and managed, an attitude which clearly stems from his dysfunctional upbringing as a member of a heridatory monarchy.
Although written some time ago, it still has relevance today and shows the philosophy of the financial oligarchy who are struggling to maintain their hold on the world financial system.
We need to step in now to reform the economic system (enact a Glass-Steagall type law as a first step), return to sound economic and banking policies and, along the way, throw monarchies into the dustbin of history where they belong.
The article details how Prince Philip has been instrumental, via his work in the field of animal conservation, in waging a war of genocide against populations in Africa and elsewhere.
The man equates Human Beings with animals who have to be culled and managed, an attitude which clearly stems from his dysfunctional upbringing as a member of a heridatory monarchy.
Although written some time ago, it still has relevance today and shows the philosophy of the financial oligarchy who are struggling to maintain their hold on the world financial system.
We need to step in now to reform the economic system (enact a Glass-Steagall type law as a first step), return to sound economic and banking policies and, along the way, throw monarchies into the dustbin of history where they belong.
From the Editor
The offprint you are holding in your hands comes from an expanded issue of the weekly Executive Intelligence Review, which rushed this special report on "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor," into print on an unusually short timetable to be published for a cover-date of Oct. 28, 1994.
What you are about to read is the result of a team effort of EIR's internationally and nationally based intelligence staff under the direction of Founding Editor Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The team of researchers on three continents who assisted in preparing material for the articles, charts, and maps in this Special Report includes: JosephBrewda, Mark Burdman, Carlos CotaMeza, Linda de Hoyos, Allen Douglas, William Engdahl, Manuel Hidalgo, Ken Kronberg, Hugo Lopez Ochoa, Rogelio Maduro, Marcia Merry, Silvia Palacios, Ana Maria Phau, David Ramonet, Raynald Rouleau, Michael Sharp, John Sigerson, Dennis Small, Gretchen Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, Geraldo Teran, Scott Thompson, Charles Tuttle, and Anthony Wikrent. Other collaborators contributed information from Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America. The project editor was Susan Welsh.
The timing was chosen to maximize the impact on the Nov. 8, 1994, midterm elections in the United States. Both the American electorate, and responsible citizens and policy making elites around the world, must base their political choices on the primary fact which LaRouche underlines in his concluding article: that the breaking economic and financial crises now gripping the entirety of this planet reflect the close of an approximately 500-year cycle in European history.The fall of the Berlin Wall five years ago in October 1989, was but the first fissure in an edifice of oligarchical control which shaped the 20th century as an era of holocaust, genocide, and war. President Clinton's break with the U.S "special relationship" with Britain, announced during his visit to continental Europe in July 1994, marks an inflection point for a potentially new foreign policy.
We contend that the case presented in these pages is irrefutable. We also believe that this report makes it clear that no serious intellectual, political or religious leader, or economic decision-maker can afford to be without the uniquely authoritative, and effectively presented , intelligence picture of the weekly EIR.
Acknowledgement
Crucial background research for this Special Report was provided by Irish filmmaker Kevin Dowling. Dowling researched and produced "The Elephant Man" in 1989, a film which exposed the global empire of Hongkong's most notorious ivory dealer, T.H. Poon. The film was "pivotal," said the WWF's Sadruddin Aga Khan, in campaigns to save the elephant. WWF Director General Charles de Haes called it ''a model of conservation journalism."
However, while making that film, Dowling unearthed some of the sordid reality of what the WWF was really doing, leading to his next film, "Tenpence in the Panda," an explosive expose of the WWF. In a campaign called "unprecedented" in the history of Britain's Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the WWF spent a reported $350,000, and exerted enormous political muscle on the IB A, in an attempt to kill or censor the film. An enraged Prince Philip falsely accused Dowling of stealing his top-secret memos, which demonstrated Philip's attempts to cover up an internal WWF audit, the Phillipson Report. Parts of that suppressed report, which was devastatingly critical of WWF policies and programs, are excerpted here for the first time anywhere.
Despite the pressure, "Tenpence in the Panda" aired on the widely watched British TV investigative series "The Cook Report," in July 1990. Dowling is currently writing what he describes as "a sensational new history of the conservation industry."
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1During the recent five years, approximately, the British press and book-publishing businesses have been occupied by an increasing intensity of scandals directed against the Royal Family, the House of Windsor.
The most recent of these appeals to the prurient interest of the gossiping public, former cavalry officer James Hewitt's contributions to the authorship of Princess in Love,2 has carried this mounting scandal above the threshold of certain influential Britons' reluctance to speak out.
1. As reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August 1988. Compare this statement with the Prince's 1986 Foreword to If I Were An Animal:"I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist. .. . I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus."Fleur Cowles, People as Animals, Foreword by HRH Prince Philip, (United Kingdom: Robin Clark Ltd., 1986).Compare the opinion of that really high-minded Prince with the words of his intellectual forerunner, Bertrand Russell:"But bad times, you say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population of the world is enormously diminished.... War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. [War] has been disappointing in this respect... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread through the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science Upon Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 102-104.2. Anna Pasternak, Princess inLove (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, Ltd., 1994).
Exemplary is the statement early this month by Harold Brooks-Baker, the publishing director of Burke's Peerage:"We are extremely close to the end of the House of Windsor," adding that, among Britain's "educated upper classes," the view of the House of Windsor has become "negative."Brooks-Baker foresaw the likelihood that the Windsors might be ousted by no later than sometime early during the next century.
It is only in low-grade fiction, or in worse precincts, such as today's major news-media, that an intimate affair with a lady (or, with a man less than a gentleman) is presented as the reason for the toppling of a throne.In fact, how little concern the general public has for either the incompetence or outrageously perverse behavior of its preferred celebrities, is shown by such disgusting phenomena as the existence of Hollywood stars' fan clubs, by the Soviet Central Committee's selection of a man virtually dead to succeed General Secretary Yuri Andropov, or by the all-too-frequent behavior shown by a majority of American voters almost any election night.The sexual scandals do not topple thrones, or members of the U.S. Congress; however, like assassinations, they are often dredged up, or, like judicial "railroads" of targeted public figures, concocted as pretexts employed in service of dynastic or other purely political motives.
After the facts presented in this Special Report are considered, the British establishment's strategic, historical motives for dumping the Windsors should become obvious.
This report documents the fact, that for more than thirty years, Prince Philip has personally directed his World Wildlife Fund in genocide against the population of sub-saharan Africa.For most of us, that Hitler-like behavior would be grounds to convict the monarchy.However, the relevant strata of the British oligarchy are not like us; they are typified, as an institution, by the common inhumanity otherwise seen among the leading London, Geneva, and Wall Street bankers, financial houses, and the London Economist of today; for reasons to be supplied in the closing section of this report, most such persons probably would not consider genocide directed against darker-complexioned peoples of sub-saharan Africa sufficient grounds for annoying the Royal Family, let alone toppling it.
This report documents also the facts which do affright even the calloused consciences of London oligarchs.The Windsors continue to spread that same mass-murderous, New Age policy which we witness in the World Wildlife Fund operations against Africans, also into the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia. This threatens the imminent downfall of a global civilization already racked by the worst financial instability which Europe has seen since the middle of the 14th Century.A continuation of the policies of the Windsors, and also of the corruption-soaked former Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher,3 under such present financial and economic circumstances, can bring on a planet-wide plunge into chaos, taking the London-led international oligarchy down with the rest of us.
3. A much-publicized, brewing legal action against her son, Mark Thatcher, in Texas courts, has put the former Prime Minister into the London press limelight as a foolishly doting mother who resorted to the highest degree of corruption in office for the purpose of elevating her peculiarly unsuitable son to millionaire status. In addition to this disgusting example of nepotism, Thatcher is vulnerable to the airing of many other unpleasant truths, should their muster be required. The bringing down of Thatcher's influence, and, therefore, that of her former U.S. toady, George Bush, accords with the same strategic motives prompting a faction of the oligarchy to topple the decadent Royals.
Think of the Windsors as like the bus driver of a vehicle, today's remains of the British Empire.Ordinarily, the spectacle of the terrified passengers in a public conveyance being operated by a besotted clown, would merely amuse those sadists of globalist financier oligarchy, were they themselves not among the passengers. In that view, one might better understand why, during the past five-odd years, the relevant portions of the British establishment at large have oozed into the opinion that that decadent dynasty, the Windsors, must go.
The charges against the Royals
Ladies and gentlemen of the readership's international jury, we have brought you to this court to hear charges arising from one of the most monstrous crimes committed in all known human history, a crime perpetrated on a vast scale.We present to you here the evidence, that for the past thirty-four years, since its founding in 1961, a wicked organization, calling itself by such names as the World Wildlife Fund, has engaged in willful genocide against the nations and peoples of the sub-Sahara regions of East, West, and South Africa.We shall prove to you, that throughout all of this period, the "kingpin" of this criminal conspiracy has been Prince Philip, also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and as Consort to the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom.
We show you here, from his own public utterances, that not only has Prince Philip been the titular head of this criminal conspiracy.You will discover that he has played this role with full consciousness of the criminal intent of his organization's policies. We show you here, that he has repeatedly stated his desire to bring about the deaths of countless millions of people, to which monstrous crime he has professed to have been driven by the same quality of motive which impelled the Conservative Revolution's Adolf Hitler:4 to the purpose of drastically reducing certain human populations of this planet.We show you here the evidence, that he has advocated the policies by means of which this genocide, including that ongoing in Rwanda, has been brought about, In Her Majesty's Service, through concerted action of the World Wildlife Fund and British Crown.
4. Cf. Armin Mohler, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932 (Darmstadt: 1972). The Nazi Party, like Adolf Hitler a creation of the imperial princedom's Thule Society, was but one variety of a populous species known as the "Conservative Revolution." This includes a leading Nazi ideologue of the 1933-45 interval, Martin Heidegger, also Friedrich von Hayek of Mont Pelerin Society notoriety, and also many who fit into the ideological category of Universal Fascism-advocate Michael Ledeen's "neo-conservative" fans of radical "free trade" and socio-economic "chaos theory" today.
We present to you the evidence, that he, by the word of his own hand and mouth, and with shameless braggadocio, has adopted publicly many of those programs which the World Wildlife Fund and its affiliates have deployed to bring about against Africans, and also others, that genocide which was the Prince's explicit standing instruction and documented intent.
This evidence will show that he is personally responsible for this ongoing and attempted genocide against the peoples of sub-saharan Africa, and, also, of other parts of this planet.
The evidence shows that this Royal Consort is guilty of this crime not only in his own person, but in his capacity as the designated princely "kingpin" of this horrible undertaking.There are many other culpable parties: the House of Windsor as an institution; many individual accomplices, simply on their own account; officials of governments such as the Major government's British Overseas Development Minister, Lady Lynda Chalker; wealthy families, in addition to his own; powerful financier and other corporate interests; highly paid officials of well-financed and complicit charitable and other private organizations; and many others: the list reads, as it should, like a summary of the Nuremberg Trials' categories of criminals under the rubric of crimes against humanity.
To catalog the number and variety of each and all of the accomplices known to us would require many volumes of documentation.The authors and editors of this Special Report have limited ourselves to presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the global enormity of the ongoing crimes being committed by this London-directed cabal, and to bring to the bar of the public conscience's justice those principal perpetrators and their leading accomplices whose assured complicity in this crime is shown beyond doubt by the evidence at hand.
In the earlier portion, the evidence presented to you will focus upon the manner in which genocide was planned and executed against the nations and populations of sub-saharan Africa. Thereafter, the focus of the evidence is shifted, to bring in facts which show that the Prince and his accomplices have used their genocide in Africa as a model for deploying the same roster of international institutions and policies in presently on-going operations against most of the world's nations and peoples of this planet.
You will see the evidence of World Wildlife Fund's key role in the efforts to ravish the sovereign existence of the world's leading power, the United States of America, and the implicitly treasonous role of the Prince's co-thinkers and other accomplices, as persons and as organizations, inside the United States.You will see the impact of these same operations in other parts of the Americas, operations intended to destroy,
It is readily and fairly calculated, that the policy-measures which the Prince and his accomplices have adopted, and are implementing currently would, if allowed, reduce the population of this planet from a current level of about 5.3 billions persons, to much less than 1 billion within about two generations, chiefly through the hyperbolically self-accelerating impact of famine and epidemic diseases of persons, animals, and plants.Under conditions produced as a byproduct of such concentrated shock to the collective immune-system of all higher forms of life, it is by no means assured that any human beings would exist at the close of the coming century, if the Prince and his accomplices were not stopped, and the policies reversed, now. We might hope such a holocaust were not certain, but we dare not risk that wish; in any case, the Prince, his accomplices, and their evil policies must be stopped now.
One must not overestimate the morality of those sections of the oligarchy which are working toward the ouster of the Windsors, of the Thatcherites, or both.From the standpoint of such factions of the oligarchy, the essential crime of the Windsors and the Thatcherites (like the Bush-leaguers in the U.S.A.) is not that the oligarchy has strong objections to the Hitler-like immorality of the Windsors' genocidal practices, but rather only the Windsors' manifest fanatical stupidity, their decadence.No doubt, many of the eugenicists of the oligarchy view this "fanatical stupidity" as the result of something like a flaw in the family's genes, whether from Philip's side of the family, or to be found already among Victoria's brood.
Put summarily, the world seems headed toward Hell in the proverbial wheelbarrow, and the Windsors (and Thatcherites) won't get off the track of their failed New Age experiments. They appear as a degenerate stage of a species, which is no longer capable of presenting, or tolerating new ideas, at a time that valid new conceptions of policy are desperately wanted.
In brief, if our adversary recognizes that his recent strategic reverses are caused by the fact that several of his generals are fanatically stupid commanders, one should acknowledge the fact that this probably correct perception has arisen, but should not fear that our reporting that truth renders EIR in any sense well-wishers of the adversary's cause.
Rather, such developments on the adversary's side as the recognition that the current basket of Windsors or Thatcherites may be the proverbial "runts of the litter," should warn us not to be misled into any self-deluding scape-goating of Prince Philip. He has been but the defective instrument of a policy-interest which was defined millennia before he was born, and will be a continuing danger for at least the several decades immediately before us, after he is departed.
The crime documented in this report is by far the greatest crime perpetrated in all human history: the assured destruction of all civilized human life on this planet, and perhaps, possibly, also a set of wicked actions leading to the extinction of the human species.Since 1961, Prince Philip has supplied a crucial leading role in heading up this global criminal conspiracy, but he did not originate the underlying policy. That policy we trace immediately to the nineteenth-century Darwin-Huxley circles and their role in creating the Eugenics network which, among its other productions, sponsored the Hitler dictatorship in Germany, and also its satellite, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood organization.Prince Philip's role should be seen as continuing that same tradition which produced Hitler earlier, and to carry that criminal tradition to new extremes, of which some television fans might say,"To boldly go where no man has gone before."Then, if you find them guilty...
Following our presentation of the evidence against the culpable Prince and his more notable accomplices, we have appended an appropriate "sentencing report."That concluding section will provide you jurors a summary of what known human history has to tell us about the origins and nature of the specific quality of criminality which the Prince, the World Wildlife Fund, and their accomplices represent. When you decide how you must judge the perpetrators charged here, we ask that you not lose sight of the setting in which this case is being heard.
The evil permeating the criminality of the Prince and his accomplices is very old, as old as the dimly lit fringes of earliest known history. The ultimate enemy is not this unfortunate Prince, but rather that specific tradition of criminality fairly described as "oligarchism."That oligarchism is the specific infectious agent responsible for the moral and mental sickness shown by the accused Prince and his accomplices. In selecting a just and prudent course of action in the matter of the ongoing criminality documented here, we must rise above the prevailing decadence of most current international legal and related practice, to cure the problem, rather than, as the victors perverted the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, seeking to hide our own earlier negligence behind some conspicuous suffering imposed upon inculpated scapegoats.
It is shown to us, respecting the character of this moment of history, that the world has tolerated for more than three decades a criminal conspiracy of an enormity already vastly exceeding, in its toll upon humanity to date, the memorable atrocities of Hitler's crew. We do not go so far as to suggest that this signals the onset of an Apocalypse; but, it does symptomize a crisis fairly seen as permeated with an apocalyptical quality.This case expresses the threatened onset of a "new dark age," global in scope, echoing, and exceeding in intensity the "new dark ages" attending the collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe, and the so-called "New Dark Age" of Europe's 14th Century.
In brief, the enormity of the Prince's crime, presently coinciding with the threatened imminent disintegration of the global monetary and financial systems, bespeaks the close of a five-hundred-odd-year cycle in the history of European civilization.To the historian, such a spectacle is to be compared only with the numerous earlier, analogous cases of closing periods of dynastic collapse which have characterized the known history of every culture on this planet, prior to the Renaissance advent of modern European christian civilization. No dynasty, however ancient or powerful, of whatever culture, has ever survived the end of such a dynastic cycle.The Windsors show no talent for becoming an exception to that rule.
Such evidence helps the jurors assembled better to understand that this Windsor dynasty were almost certainly turned into a pitied relic very soon, whatever we do or fail to do in this proceeding. Our task is not to punish the Windsors (although we may be hastening their retirement), but rather to act with greater prudence than any ruling culture has shown at the close of any earlier time or place of apocalyptical crisis.
Our work here will be rightly judged not by some silly "Nuremberg-style" sentence we might recommend for the Prince and his accomplices. It is relevant to this admonition, to recognize, from considering how many millions of onlookers have tolerated the nature and scope of the crimes which the Prince has conducted openly, how little enduring good was done, or personal political courage shown by the Nuremberg courts after World War II.The nominally exonerated Schacht, and Auschwitz's von Knierem had but recently departed the stage, and the benches at Nuremberg had scarcely grown cold, in 1961, when the Prince and his accomplices launched a scheme vaster and more evil than any yet known to have been conducted or conceived by Hitler's crew.
The crimes of the House of Windsor must be seen rightly by this jury, by borrowing the eyes of history.The Prince's is a most monstrous crime, but yet, more significantly, the symptom of the terminal sickness of a civilization which has tolerated the conspicuous promotion of such evil policies and agencies.Prince Philip (circled) at the Nazi funeral in 1937The essence of the matter is that this Prince has been a cat's-paw of the decadence of our age, and, in that way, a marker for the onrushing doom of ruling global institutions bereft of the moral fitness to survive. It is that latter sickness, not the mere symptom, to which our justice must address its curative powers.
We conclude these opening remarks thus: The challenge posed by the evidence set before you, is:
Can you, the jurors, be provoked by the horror of the fact that no solution for the collapse of this civilization exists under the presently generally accepted rules of conduct, into discovering the needed radical changes in axioms of policymaking, those changes which might enable humanity to rebuild a ruined society immediately from the ruins of the collapsed dynasty, without living through the intervening nightmare of yet another "New Dark Age" ?
To a summary of that purpose, we shall return in the concluding epilogue of this proceeding today.
A Bad Idea - Population Control
From: www.frankfuredi.com
"Alongside today’s respect for human life there is the increasingly popular idea that there is too much human life around, and that it is killing the planet.
Since the beginning of time, one of the clearest markers of an enlightened society has been the moral status it attaches to human life. And outwardly, at least, twenty-first-century Western societies express an unprecedented degree of respect for human life.
For example, cultural and political institutions continually talk about the need to uphold human rights. The human rights narrative now shapes policymaking, both domestically and internationally. Many even argue that protecting human rights is a cross-border duty that should override the principle of national sovereignty. Our societies are also increasingly health-obsessed. The phenomenal growth in health expenditure in recent years shows just how much prosperous societies respect individual life today. Western societies will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths in their efforts to keep a premature baby alive or to prolong the life of elderly people or those who are chronically ill.
And yet, alongside the ethos of human rights and the development of heroic medicine, contemporary society appears estranged from its own humanity. To put it bluntly: it is difficult to celebrate human life in any meaningful way when people – or at least the growth of the number of people – are regarded as the source of the world’s problems. Alongside today’s respect for human life there is the increasingly popular idea that there is too much human life around, and that it is killing the planet.
The humanist impulse that once drove the development of the modern world has been replaced by a tendency to view humanity with suspicion, or even outright hostility. The vocabulary of our times – ‘human impact on the environment’; ‘ecological footprint’; ‘human consumption’ – invokes a sense of dread over the active exercise of human life. Apparently, there are too many of us doing too much living and breathing. In a world where humanity is portrayed as a threat to the environment and to the very survival of the planet, human activity – from birth to consumption to procreation – is regarded as a mixed blessing. Consequently, our concern with preserving and improving the quality of life of some people sits uneasily with an increasingly shrill demand to prevent people from being born in the first place.
Today, many green-leaning writers and activists argue that population control is the best solution to the problems we face. This belief that there are ‘too many people’ inhabiting the globe has reared its ugly head numerous times over the past 200 years. Since the times of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), a catastrophic vision of population growth causing the collapse of society has formed an important part of the culturally pessimistic outlook. Back in the eighteenth century it was predicted that population growth would lead to famine, starvation and death.
Today’s pessimists have raised the stakes further: they denounce population growth as a threat to biodiversity and to the very existence of the planet. Twenty-first-century Malthusians are not so much worried about an impending famine: they’re more concerned that people are producing and consuming too much food and other commodities.
Where in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Malthusians warned that population growth threatened people with starvation, today’s Malthusians denounce people for threatening the planet by consuming too much. As a result, contemporary Malthusianism has an unusually strident and misanthrophic streak. In the West, the population-control lobby castigates those who have large families for being environmentally irresponsible. Having children, especially lots of children, is now discussed as an ‘eco-crime’ on a par with pollution. From this perspective, a new human life is seen as little more than another producer of carbon; new life is seen as a form of pollution. So it would be better, the Malthusians argue, if these new human lives did not exist at all. As one Malthusian crusader notes: ‘A non-existent person has no environmental footprint; the emission “saving” is instant and total.’ (1) This preference for the non-existent over the existent speaks to a powerful anti-humanist sensibility. And it is not only eccentric and isolated misanthropes who value ‘non-existence’ as being somehow morally superior to existence – rather, this outlook is symptomatic of a wider trend for devaluing the status of human life today.
For contemporary Malthusians, every new child is another pollutant: she may just be a baby now, but by the time she is 80 she will be responsible for the emission of 9.3 tonnes of CO2! So why worry about how much pollution your car causes? Apparently you should be far more concerned with limiting the size of the population. ‘Population limitation should…be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations’, argues the dreary British-based population-control outfit, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) (2). Once the emission of greenhouse gases is taken to be the defining feature of human activity, then it follows that controlling fertility is the ideal ‘carbon offsetting strategy’. ‘If we had half as many people, we wouldn’t have much of a climatic warming problem’, says Ric Oberlink of the US-based group Californians for Population Stabilization (3). And no doubt if the human species disappeared off the face of the Earth altogether, then the crisis of global warming would resolve itself and the planet would be very happy.
For Oberlink and his associates, global warming is a symptom of the far greater menace of population growth. ‘Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem’, claims Oberlink. John Seager, president of Population Connection, the American campaign group that was formerly known as Zero Population Growth, also believes that the ‘underlying cause of global warming’ is ‘human population growth’ (4). The idea that population growth is the principal threat to the planet is widely disseminated through the mainstream media. While giving the prestigious BBC Reith Lectures earlier this year, the economist Jeffrey Sachs argued that ‘our planet is crowded to an unprecedented degree’, and such overcrowding is ‘creating….unprecedented pressures on human society and on the physical environment’ (5). This pessimistic view of population growth is so taken for granted that it is very rarely challenged in mainstream intellectual and cultural circles.
The catastrophic imagination in contemporary Western culture has encouraged the Malthusian lobby to target the very aspiration for procreation. Controlling fertility is now described as a duty rather than a matter of choice. ‘Couples making decisions about family size do so in the belief that it is a matter for them and their personal preferences alone’, says the OPT, with incredulity (6). The idea that people should have the right to make choices about their family size is dismissed as an indefensible outrage against common sense.
This assault on the right to procreate is often intrusive, even coercive. Take the example of Rwanda. The world was horrified by the mass slaughter in Rwanda in 1994, during which an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed. Yet it appears that, so far as the population-control lobby is concerned, there are still too many people living in Rwanda. As one headline earlier this year put it: ‘After so many deaths, too many births.’ Apparently, ‘After the 1994 genocide, in which more than 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered, it seemed difficult to believe that overpopulation would ever be a problem. Yet Rwanda has long had more people than its meagre resources and small area can support.’ Now, with the guidance of Western non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Rwandan government is planning a sweeping population-control programme. From now on, everyone who visits a medical centre will be ‘counselled’ about family planning (7). Experience shows that such ‘counselling’ in reality means putting pressure on women to use contraception.
It is in poverty-stricken, insecure countries like Rwanda, where people lack the resources to assume even a modicum of control over their lives, that the truly inhumane nature of population-control policies becomes clear.
A cause in search of an argument
The distinctive feature of Malthusianism is its profound consciousness of limits. The fatalistic Malthusian outlook looks upon people as parasitic consumers whose appetites are limited only by the obstacles thrown up by nature. Malthus’ Essay, which was written in 1798, was a reaction against the optimistic visions of humanity put forward by Enlightenment thinkers. For Enlightenment thinkers such as Condorcet and Godwin, people were not simply consumers – they were are also creative actors, innovators, producers. Thankfully, in the centuries since he wrote Essay and other works, Malthus’ alarmist warnings have proven to be unfounded: food production has generally increased in line with population growth and there has not been a global famine. However, the fact that Malthus’ predictions did not come true has not discouraged anti-humanists from pursuing the population-control project. They simply invent new reasons for why we must control population growth.
Over the past two centuries, a bewildering array of problems has been blamed on population growth. At various times, famine, poverty, the failure of Third World economies, instability, revolution, the spread of communism and the subordinate position of women have been linked to population growth (8). The approach of the population growth lobby is devastatingly simple: they take a problem and argue that it would diminish in intensity if there were fewer people. Such simplistic methodology is even used to account for the emergence of new forms of terrorism today.
The Malthusian fantasy about a ‘ticking population bomb’ has been recycled in a new form – now rising population is said to give rise to real bombs in the form of Islamist terrorism. Apparently overpopulation creates a lot of poor, unemployed, discontented men; and many of them turn into troublemakers, which means that they can become canon fodder for terrorist networks; thus they end up on the wrong side of the ‘war on terror’. In the Seventies Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, argued that population growth in the South inexorably led to the triumph of communism. Today he has recycled this simplistic diagnosis to argue that population growth has led to the rise of international terrorism. Demographic factors are ‘likely contributors’ to terrorism, he claims. Why? Because the ‘vast majority of terrorists are young males’ and there are ‘huge numbers of boys under 15’ in Muslim nations.
This idea that large numbers of young males equals a potential terrorist threat is systematically promoted by the supporters of population control. ‘It is impossible to ignore the link between rapid population growth and terrorism’, says the director of the Population Coalition, a collection of population-control groups. In truth, it is the logic of the simpleton that sees a link between large numbers of young men and terrorism: population-control activists believe that because population is growing at the same time that new forms of terrorism are emerging, then they must be linked! If we took this view to its logical conclusion, then anything that coincides with current demographic patterns – whether it’s Hurricane Katrina, the boom in property prices in London or the popularity of iPods – could be linked to population growth.
Prominent Malthusian organisations such as the Worldwatch Institute and the Population Institute have set out to repose population control as an effective counter-terrorist measure. Consider the Population Institute’s study Breeding Insecurity: Global Security Implications Of Rapid Population Growth. It argues that ‘rapid population growth in developing countries creates national security problems, including civil unrest and terrorism’. The report cites a study by another Malthusian group, Population Action International, which claims that ‘youth bulges create instability and increase the likelihood for terrorism and civil unrest by as much as 50 per cent’. Fifty per cent might sound like a big number – but this is an entirely made-up figure, a figment of the Malthusian imagination which is obsessed with constructing a relationship between demographic growth and terrorism.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the ‘50 per cent’ claim is that the threat of terrorism could be halved if only we implemented a vigorous programme of population control. Apparently the solution to the problem of terrorism is to stop ‘them’ breeding. As the Population Institute’s report concludes: ‘While family-planning programs will not create a more secure world on their own, they will go a long way toward reducing pressures on societies that lead to instability, unrest, and terrorism.’
Losing faith in the human
You don’t have to be a sophisticated student of global politics to see through the simplistic and opportunistic arguments on security put forward by the new Malthusians. But then, the success of Malthusianism has never been down to the rigour or eloquence of its ideas. Rather, the success of Malthusian ideas depends on the strength of cultural pessimism at any given time. And today it is the loss of faith in the human potential, a fatalistic view of the future, which has rejuvenated the population-control crusade.
So powerful is cultural pessimism today that even the special quality of human life is now called into question. Today, pollution is seen as the principal feature and consequence of human existence. Indeed, today’s neo-Malthusian thinking is far more dismal and misanthropic than the original version. For all his intellectual pessimism and lack of imagination, Thomas Malthus possessed a far more robust belief in humanity than do his contemporary followers. Although he shared today’s cultural obsession with the limits of nature, he nonetheless expressed a conviction that humanity had a positive role to play. He argued that although ‘our future prospects respecting the mitigation of the evils arising from the principle of population may not be so bright as we could wish…they are far from being entirely disheartening, and by no means preclude that gradual and progressive improvement in human society, which before the late wild speculations on this subject, was the object of rational expectation’ (9).
Malthus’ reservations about the human potential were a product of his deep-seated hostility to the optimistic humanism of his intellectual opponents: Condorcet, Godwin and others. And yet, he made it clear that despite his pessimistic view of population growth ‘it is hoped that the general result of [my] inquiry is not such as to make us give up the improvement of human society in despair’ (10).
In contrast to today’s singularly pessimistic neo-Malthusians, Malthus’ On The Principle of Population managed to convey a belief in humanity. Over the past two centuries, his followers have often tried to discourage people from the ‘wrong’ classes and the ‘wrong races’ from procreating – yet despite their prejudices they continued to affirm the special status of the human species (or at least certain sections of it). In some instances – for example, during the rise of the eugenic movement – rabid prejudice against so-called racial inferiors was combined with a belief in human progress.
By contrast, today’s Malthusians share all the old prejudices and in addition they harbour a powerful sense of loathing against the human species itself. Is it any surprise, then, that some of them actually celebrate non-existence? The obsession with natural limits distracts society from the far more creative search for solutions to hunger or poverty or lack of resources. Worse still, by calling into question the special quality of the human, the population-control lobby seeks to corrode people’s confidence in their ability to tackle the problems of the future. Human life should always be treated as precious and special. How can there possibly be too many of us?
Frank Furedi is author of Population And Development; A Critical Introduction (Buy this book from Amazon(UK)).
(1) A Population-Based Climate Strategy - An Optimum Population Trust Briefing by David Nicholson-Lord, May 2007
(2) Ibid.
(3) Cited in Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming by Monisha Bansal, CNSNews, 18 April 2007
(4) Effective Way To Fight Global Warming by John Seager, The Providence Journal, 20 April 2007
(5) Bursting at the Seams, Lecture 1 of Reith lectures 2007
(6) A Population-Based Climate Strategy - An Optimum Population Trust Briefing by David Nicholson-Lord, May 2007
(7) See After So Many Deaths, Too Many Births by Stephen Kinzer , New York Times, 11 February 2007
(8) For an elaboration of these arguments see Population And Development; A Critical Introduction, Frank Furedi, Polity Press (Oxford), 1997
(9) T.R.Malthus (undated) On The Principle of Population, vol.2; p.261
(10) Ibid."
Queen Elizabeth II - Do We Need Her?
The idea of a Monarchy is that a particular family has a divine right to rule over the rest of us.
That would be a bit like me becoming Chairman of the Board of Barclays Bank, purely because I was born into a particular family.
Is this an idea that we should be supporting in the 21st Century? Is it relevant?
More to the point, is this an idea that we should be paying for in the 21st Century?
Calculating how much the Monarchy costs the UK taxpayer appears to be difficult. The Royal household is apparently exempt form the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - why?
This is from www.republic.org:
Well, her husband, Prince Philip, is an advocate of population control. He is reported to have said:
One of our Enemies of Humanity, George H. W. Bush has the same view, a view, incidentally, shared by Adolf Hitler. Of course, this makes logical sense as the Bush Family have a history of bankrolling and supporting Hitler's rise to power. Both the Nazis and the Bush Family were ardent Eugenicists.
By the way, The Queen made Poppy Bush an honourary Knight of the Order of the Bath in 1993.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Why would the Queen knight a man whose family served the Nazis?
Let's put it plainly here: the financial oligarchy (that group which is a parasite on Humanity but, for the time being, holds huge monetary wealth) wants to reduce the population hugely. Why? Because they know that sensible, educated people will not tolerate their existence, their rape of the wealth of nations, any longer.
Therefore, they lie by telling us that the population of the Earth is unsustainable (it isn't) and that we are causing global warming (we aren't).
Conclusion: anybody who supports either one of these lies is either deluded or supports the oligarchy policy of genocide.
The Queen, Prince Philip and their family are not the powerless figureheads that the British Public think them to be.
Please read the following article:
The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.
That would be a bit like me becoming Chairman of the Board of Barclays Bank, purely because I was born into a particular family.
Is this an idea that we should be supporting in the 21st Century? Is it relevant?
More to the point, is this an idea that we should be paying for in the 21st Century?
Calculating how much the Monarchy costs the UK taxpayer appears to be difficult. The Royal household is apparently exempt form the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - why?
This is from www.republic.org:
- The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
- The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
- Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
- £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
- The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
- Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
- Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
Well, her husband, Prince Philip, is an advocate of population control. He is reported to have said:
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."And we're paying for this clown?
One of our Enemies of Humanity, George H. W. Bush has the same view, a view, incidentally, shared by Adolf Hitler. Of course, this makes logical sense as the Bush Family have a history of bankrolling and supporting Hitler's rise to power. Both the Nazis and the Bush Family were ardent Eugenicists.
By the way, The Queen made Poppy Bush an honourary Knight of the Order of the Bath in 1993.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Why would the Queen knight a man whose family served the Nazis?
Let's put it plainly here: the financial oligarchy (that group which is a parasite on Humanity but, for the time being, holds huge monetary wealth) wants to reduce the population hugely. Why? Because they know that sensible, educated people will not tolerate their existence, their rape of the wealth of nations, any longer.
Therefore, they lie by telling us that the population of the Earth is unsustainable (it isn't) and that we are causing global warming (we aren't).
Conclusion: anybody who supports either one of these lies is either deluded or supports the oligarchy policy of genocide.
The Queen, Prince Philip and their family are not the powerless figureheads that the British Public think them to be.
Please read the following article:
The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)