Lord Monckton Agenda 21s Globalist Death Plan for Humanity (Info Wars) | 06Abr2016 16:14:58
Annual incremental conferences
Transferring power from elected to unelected hands
USA’s Democrat Party
Bring national sovereignty to an end
Gradually set up more and more bureaucracies
Lack of transparency/Formal dictatorship
Fight against disease
Hatred for humanity
Forbidden to "disagree"
It doesn’t matter what you do, they’ll blame everything on global warming
(Aaron Dykes) We are back from break on this InfoWars Nightly News, and we’re excited now to be joined by lord Christopher Monckton himself, very much on the cutting edge of fighting against the climate Regime changers who wanna take over our world, curb civilization and really put us in our place. We’re not gonna let that happen, of course.
Thank you for joining us, lord Monckton.
(Monckton) Well, it’s a real pleasure to be here, and let’s hope that we can, between us, convince the powers that be that backing the climate scare has been a failure and they must get off it and think of something else to frighten us with.
(Dykes) Well, it was only a few years ago Al Gore and co. were telling us the debate was over, this climate change, really, new way of thinking was just inevitable and we should all submit, but they’ve had a number of setbacks in the past few meetings and they really had their agenda stalled. But at the same time, we have the revival of the Agenda 21 this year, Rio +20 Conference, 20 years after the first time the United Nations held a summit on how to bring about sustainable development. Let’s get into that and how it ties into the larger climate change issues.
(Monckton) What has happened is they’ve lost the argument with the public, on the climate. In fact, they’ve lost the scientific argument, as well as the economic argument. And because they’ve lost it, they know they’ve got to find something else, to justify the continued existence of the UN.
See, the UN has become a very expensive body. It’s a lot of money the nations pay towards it, it’s increasingly wanting to have governing power, it’s wanting to undermine the very concept of a sovereign independent nation, because they want to have, effectively, global government.
Now they know if one talks of world government this is something that will be very unpopular. So instead of calling it world government, they call it “global governance”. This is the new phrase for it, which somehow sounds nice and respectable, and not too dangerous. But of course what they’re really after is total control and the idea of the Rio +20 Conference is to suggest that the nations of the West have been raping the Planet with that insatiable demands for natural resources, land to build houses and roads and airports on, and that now humans must be reduced, according to one of the more extremist papers put forward for this conference, by 5 billion of our present, -- I think it’s 6 billion of our present 7 billion must be done away with and is down to we not having more than 1 billion humans on the planet – really extreme stuff, on the fringes of this. Now the draft document, the draft conclusions of the conference, it’s already been decided roughly what the conclusions are going to be. I’ve seen that document, and compared with some of the more extreme climate documents I’ve seen from these conferences, it’s pretty milk and water so far, which means that the real draft hasn’t in fact yet been made available.
Annual incremental conferences
But what I think they’re going to try to do is to follow a route which the EEU knows well, where you have annual incremental conferences, as they’ve done with the climate, with agreements at the end of each conference, because the negotiators don’t want to go home and say “We haven’t even signed an agreement”. And each of these agreements gradually takes on the force of what your Constitution calls “Customary International Law”.
And once that happens, even if they aren’t signed into law by your Senate as a treaty, which has to vote for treaties by a two thirds majority, they can still become the law of the land if the supreme court, which is very much that way inclined at the moment, were to say that they were. And that’s how they’re going to circumvent the constitutional requirement that a treaty has to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate and they’re going to do roughly what was done to us, as we lost our powers in Britain to the EEU, with this endless succession of treaties, each of which doesn’t seem to change things all that much compared with the previous treaties, at least that’s the official story line.
And yet at the end of the process you suddenly find you’ve lost your nation, you’ve lost your democracy, you’ve lost power, we still have one, we still have elections but they mean – nothing! Five sixths of our laws being made by someone else.
And the UN, who’s seen this and has very jealously thought to itself, “Well, if the EU can do it on a regional scale, why don’t we try the same approach on a global scale?” So they invited the EU to send advisors to the Cancun Conference, for instance, on the climate two years ago, to advise them on how to start building up these incremental annual treaties or agreements that have the affect of treaties even though the Senate doesn’t ratify them, until you get to the point where the UN will suddenly end up with all the power and all the media will say, “Well, of course, it was inevitable from the start.”
They’re going to try to play the same game, but an interesting development has now arisen. The EEU, which had previously regarded itself as almost a sovereign nation, that’s the way it’s been trying to go, taking away sovereign power from the individual member States, and putting them all into the EEU. It has suddenly realized that if the UN takes global domination, then the EEU will be subservient to it and they’ve suddenly realized they don’t like that. So it’s wonderful! Already they’ve taken power from the member-states of the EU, including Britain. Now they don’t want that power taken from them and given to the UN. They’ve suddenly woken up to the fact the advise they’ve been giving to the UN on how to do this is going to lead to their own subjugation to the UN and the EEU bureaucrats really don’t like this and they have now said, really, I think for this reason, though they’ll never admit it is for the reason, they’re not even going to send a EEU delegation to the UN Climate Conference, uuh, to the UN Sustainable Development Conference in Rio.
But I will be there because it is very necessary that the superficial admirable goal of sustainable development should be one which is implemented sensibly and not by unelected international authorities such as the UN.
Transferring power from elected to unelected hands
This brings me really onto another problem which is beginning to emerge, when you look at things like the Rio +20 Conference. What is happening is that increasingly these international bodies are saying: Give us the power, give us the wealth, give us the decision making and legislative power so that we make the laws for the whole world, but not one of these international bodies is elected by anyone. The EEU isn’t. The UN isn’t. The Law of the Sea Conference, very topical at the moment because there is another treaty which people are trying to push the US into – they are not elected, and it’s really a simple enough point: every time you transfer power from elected hands here to an international or supranational or regional or global body, you are transferring power from elected hands here to unelected hands somewhere else. And the rule that I would want to put in as, really, as an amendment to your Constitution, because the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee this one, would be to say that no power shall be, no legislative power should be handed over by the Congress of the United States to any supranational or global entity, unless that supranational or global entity is one whose governing Cabinet or Council has been elected by universal suffrage among all the peoples of the states parties to the convention that established that particular bureaucracy.
So, no more power to any international organization, unless that organization is elected by the states parties to the treaties setting it up.
(Dykes) Yeah, I think that makes perfect sense and of course they’re going after not only national sovereignty and regional sovereignty, but individual sovereignty, I mean, it’s really what Sustainable Development is all about.
(Monckton) The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class knows best what’s best for the governing class. The governing class wants to use the environment as an excuse for accreting more power to itself, centralizing that power in regional, and increasingly now, in global institutions. Where does this leave the individual? You and I are told, or we certainly are in Europe, what kind of light bulbs you can and can’t use. Now, what business is that of a supranational or global kind of agreement, or a national one, for that matter? And there’s a very useful Catholic principle here. The Catholic philosophy of government is quite well developed in the documents of various councils and popes going back 2.000 years. Under the principle which is now known as subsidiarity by which, this principle simply asserts that the decisions of government should be taken at the most local level that is possible for that decision to be taken.
So, for instance, really nobody, except the family itself needs to decide what kind of little bulbs their children will read by. That is not the business even of the local authorities, let alone national, supranational or global ones.
So, if we are to make sure that the individual continues to be the basic building block of society, and the family then is the next building block up, and the State only comes in after that, then we must not allow these international groups such as the UN at the Sustainable Development Conference to take away from the individual the powers and the right of decision which properly belong to him and his family. This is a very important philosophical point which I think is often lost when one is looking at the political side of all this. And one of the things that the governing class, as the French calls it the classe politique, worldwide is now guilty of is a desire to micromanage. This, of course, at one level, all government is instinctualy totalitarian. By totalitarian I mean desiring to interfere in every little detail of our lives – light bulbs and all. They’re control freaks. It goes with being in government: you want to exercise control. That’s what government is: it is control. So to some extent all in government are control freaks. And the totalitarians are the ones who are most open about it, and they say “We want to govern because we think we know best.”
But you see, your government exists under a Constitution that your Founding Fathers saw was going to be necessary, precisely to protect you from the over ambition of the governing elite. And your Constitution makes it very plain that there shall be a proper separation of powers, a very traditional document in many ways, this Constitution, there should be a Legislative – that’s where this Constitution starts – all Legislative power in the hands of Congress that you elect, nobody else has any unless people you elect are given it.
Then they describe the Executive – that’s the office of the President and his Cabinet – and then the Judiciary, and the separate powers of each, and the ways that they interact. All of these are carefully thought about and if you read, say, the Federalist Papers or the Madison Diaries where all of these things are mused upon and considered by some of the great men, the greatest men of their age, in that long hot summer in Philadelphia, they had a vision, a vision which I wish we still had in Britain and Europe, that the people know best what’s best for the people, that the people should rule by the ballot box at regular intervals. I would like to carry that still further. I would like to have the right of initiative referendum built into Constitutions like this. So that you don’t even allow the Congress exclusively to decide what bills should be debated. You, the people, should have that power too.
But when it comes then to these international conferences, like this UN conference, everything in this Constitution is alien to the people who are behind this Sustainable Development of Agenda 21.
(Dykes) Yeah and they have a pattern of usurpation,and some of the top globals talked about probably 50 years ago how they’re trying to do an in run around sovereignty, particularly with reference to the US. Now when it comes to Agenda 21, we’ve seen this kind of development where they’re installing components. Obama said of something called the Rule Council that has everyone from Homeland Security to Department of Defense to EPA on it, and they said “Well, we wanna crack down on farms because of the environment, blah, blah, blah, so we’re gonna have the EPA regulating dust, we’re gonna have the transportation Department regulating who’s allowed to ride on a tractor or run a vehicle and slams on all these other types of licenses and components to try to do an end run around individual farming and the ability to run your own communities.
USA’s Democrat Party
(Monckton) One thing you should always watch out for in all this is why are they going after the farmers. Why did they previously go after the fossil fuel companies. Because these are the big supporters of, and donors too, of the Republican opponents of the Democrat Party. And the Democrats, like Socialists everywhere, have learnt that if you really want to rule, then what you do is you go after all the big donors to your opponents, and you do it in several different ways. First you do it by regulation – regulating farming so that it becomes less profitable; shutting down the fossil industries as best you can, is now 150 odd coal-fired plants on hold that should be being built now to keep these lights on. Not being built because the Democrats are determined to shut down the big fossil fuel donors to the Republican Party. So there’s very much a selfishness in this. And you see it again in the UN’s Agenda 21 proposals. These are not well-intentioned proposals for the genuine environmental stewardship of the Planet because, frankly, governments like yours in a nation as experienced as yours, are perfectly capable of regulating your own environment without having some UN bureaucracy to tell you what to do.
(Dykes) Well, definitely give it a try first, anyway, first.
(Monckton) Well, that would be, I think, the way forward. And so you always have to watch out for the Democrats trying to do-done the big funders of the Republican Party and Republican leaders. That’s what they’re after. It’s after this total domination and you see it over and over again, they are always at it, they are always encroaching in various ways. For instance, the Heartland Institute, which is a Right Wing think tank. And I spoke at that Conference in Chicago just yesterday. They were very interesting.
They are now being encircled by the Left, who are writing and telephoning individuals, e-mailing the donors, whom they found out by a trick. There’s a fellow called Peter Blyke, who wrote a bogus memo and put in a bogus e-mail address saying that he was one of the trustees, and could they please send them all the Board papers, including the list of funders. That’s how they got it, by a trick. And they’re now going to the individual funders, one-by-one, and naming them publicly in demonstrations and then getting in touch with them saying, “We’re going to go on making life grief for you until you stop funding the Heartland Institute”. It’s the same approach. Always trying to just do-down the other side by, frankly, unfair, dishonest, and in this particular case, criminal means.
Bring national sovereignty to an end
And the UN is not averse to doing the same thing. They had a conference under Ban Ki-Moon in May last year of which the theme was how do we bring national sovereignty to an end. And when they say how do we bring national sovereignty to an end, and they’re not prepared to set up a global democratic government, well, what they’re actually bringing to an end is Democracy itself. A Democracy which your Founding Fathers intended you to have and, if you could, to keep it.
(Dykes) Yeah, it would’ve been nice. Well, let’s go back to Agenda 21. In 1992 we had figures Maurice Strong and others, and they were always very concerned at the time about how to take what maybe sounds like a reasonable cause, the environment, but to transfer it into these banks that they would control, and they would essentially become the regulators of all global activity, if it can relate to the commons – the air, the water, the land, and today that has really matured into Al Gore and Goldman Sachs, holding funds for the carbon credits and all this. What are we gonna see at Rio +20, how has their agenda matured over the years? Are they hopeful that they’re going to achieve their goals? Are they angry? Because I hear on all kinds of radio, alternative media, everyone is talking about Agenda 21, catching up to what they probably didn’t know about20 years ago, for this kind of anniversary meeting.
(Monckton) That’s quite right. People are much more aware of these poisonous words “Agenda 21” than they were. They now realize this is a grab for absolute power by the UN and by the Environmental Movement, which is, of course, where all the Marxists went when the Berlin Wall came down, they had nowhere else to go. So they piled into the Environmental Movement. And my good friend, the late Harry Gallington, who was one of the founders of Greenpeace, was the most non-political guy you ever could meet. I was astonished when one day he said, “You know, we all had to leave Greenpeace two or three years after we joined it because the Marxists moved in and have taken it over. We were non-political, so we couldn’t stop them. And he was heartbroken because he really cared about the environment in a genuine and sensible and proportionate way. Whereas these people have a nasty political agenda; Greenpeace has nothing to do with the environment these days. That’s just a fig leaf. You know, it’s a green fig leaf, over a red instrument beneath, should we say, which is intended to do things to us which will be very unpleasant and uncomfortable.
And so what we have to do is to be very alert to the fact that the global governance, as they would like to call it, world government, as I would bluntly call it, these freaks, these control freaks, want to use Agenda 21, they want to use these Rio conferences and the Durban conferences to carry this agenda continuously forward, by establishing slowly, annually, by stealth, the bureaucratic structures and power base, and wealth base, through preemptive taxation over individual nations, that will enable them increasingly to function as a global government in the way that the EEU is now the supreme government of Europe, to the absolute fury and hatred of people like me who have to live under this effective dictatorship.
Gradually set up more and more bureaucracies
And the way they’re going to do it, ‘cause you asked what is their plan, how are they going to unfold this, well, it’s already evident in the draft conclusions of the conference, which you already, I’ve got hold of them, they are intended to follow the same sort of thing as the EEU did, and also as the UN did with the climate thing, where you gradually set up more and more bureaucracies, you know this conference calls for the UN to do this, do that, do the other. And the UN then sets up a bureaucracy to do it. Say “Well we were told to do it by this agreement or that international meeting or whatever. They will always justify where they were told to do it. But in effect what they are doing is expanding their power base and sending the bills to governments. And saying “Well, you had this meeting and signed this document, now you’ve got to pay.
(Dykes) I don’t know if it’s the appropriate metaphor, but it makes me think of throwing a stone into a pond. The small circle gets bigger until it’s surrounding the whole area they wanna conquer.
(Monckton) That’s exactly what happens. They want to expand the center, to the point that it becomes so well funded, so many top people go there, that governments anywhere else can no longer compete. That’s what we have in Europe, you know. The European dictatorship where all the best people who want to go into government, they don’t go into Parliament. What would be the point? If you go into Parliament you can vote for it, it’s right. Makes absolutely no difference because the real power and five sixths of all our laws are made by people we don’t elect, somewhere else. So the people, the real power hungry folk now they don’t go into Parliament. And so Parliament becomes weaker, because the people with real ambition don’t go there. They go instead into this cloying bureaucracy in Brussels.
And the UN is now expanding in the same way. They are multiplying agencies in the same way that Brussels did. You know, the UN High Commission for Refugees, the UN Children’s Fund, the UN Environment Program, this and that, all multiply. More and more of them. Every time I go to one of these UN conferences there’s another three or four. There are now something like 150 individual UN agencies, each separately funded, by the tax payers in States who have no control over how much money is spent or how much of their money is taken from their pockets to pay for the UN. It’s all not transparent at all. It’s all completely secret. It’s the very antithesis of what was intended in this Constitution, where government had to be visible to the people.
Lack of transparency/Formal dictatorship
It was in Britain that the idea of recording the procedures in Parliament first came about with Hansard, producing a daily record of what was said. And this happens, of course, in all Congress orders– a congressional record of what was said. And if you testify in front of a congressional committee, your remarks are read into the record and any documents you submit are written into the record. And anybody can look and see if what you said was sensible or not. But in the EEU, the commissars meet behind closed doors. If they decide on a law, that then gets passed to another committee, called the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which fleshes it out and does the detailed work. That’s behind closed doors too. Then it goes to the Council of Ministers. They meet behind closed doors.
And then and only then, if all of those three have said yes it goes to the European Parliament, which is elected but has no power, it’s just a ceremonialism, as Alex Jones calls it, it’s just a decoration. And they, even if they vote it down, the commissars can reintroduce it either by the same process again until the Parliament gives in, which they’ve done on many occasions. Or simply directly, as what’s called the Commission Regulation, bypassing the elected Parliament altogether and of, indeed, all the elected Parliaments of Europe altogether. We are now in a formal sense a dictatorship and it’s very unpleasant to live under that, because all the bureaucrats then start behaving like dictators. And they hate me because I stand up and I name them on the air and I give them a lot of trouble. But the important point here is the UN would now like to copy the success of the EEU in growing these gargantuan and completely useless and very damaging and stifling bureaucracies, so that it can have world domination.
Can you imagine, the right to levy taxation on the whole globe? This is going to give enormous power and wealth to the center. And it is absolutely unthinkable to me, having been brought up in a democratic tradition, which we have now lost, to see that you and the rest of the World might lose this too via these climate conferences. And the way they do it is there is a climate conference every year. The negotiators all go to some place where there are plenty of grass cuts and nice sun, sea and sand, so they get a bit of a holiday. Therefore they don’t read the documents put in front of them. They just agree to them for the sake of going home and saying “Yes! We have an agreement”. And these agreements are cumulative, they pile up, one after the other. Real power, real wealth being transferred from individual States year by year, with each annual new agreement to the center. Never the other way.
And the same now with the Rio+20 Conference. One of the things they haven’t yet written yet into the draft, but I know they’re going to, is we can no longer afford, for the sake of the Planet, to have these meetings every 20 years. We must have annual meetings -- to carry this process forward and save the Planet. You can hear the rhetoric, now, and I bet you any amount of money you like, you won’t find this in the draft now, but I bet you that that will be proposed. It’s already being planned, I’m quite sure. And they will then say annual conferences on sustainable development. And each of those annual conferences will have to have, let’s say, annual agreement or treaty at the end of it, which will transfer power, always more power, from us to them, never ever the other way. It’s been the same in Europe, it’s been the same with the climate treaties. Now they’re going to do the same with Agenda 21. They’ve learned how to do this now.
(Dykes) Now, so you already underscored the eugenics behind all this, that they want to reduce the world population almost all the way, 90 + %, basically.
(Monckton) They want to take 6/7 of it away. Yes.
(Dykes) But this is getting quite deadly, these agreements. Of course we remember Copenhagen, it was rejected by the developing world because they realize how much this is gonna cost them, in money, but also in livelihood, and this is getting worse and worse because we see United Nations groups pushing entire tribes, entire villages off the land in the name of fighting climate change, killing people, even, showing up with armed weapons and so forth.
(Monckton) This has happened in Uganda, it’s happened in Honduras, Heaven knows in how many other places it’s happened, because our news media are not very good at covering countries where it’s uncomfortable, there are no 5-star hotels and mini bars. They don’t like to go to places like Honduras or Uganda, ‘cause it’s not comfortable there, it’s not smart to go there. And so a lot of these things are happening around the world and are not being reported in the West. I mean, to give you one example of this, if you go back a few years to these various attempts to mess around with the climate, one of the things they did was to say “We must take lots of agricultural land out of production for the sake of growing bio fuels”. And they took millions of acres of agricultural land…
(Dykes) That was totally genocidal.
(Monckton) … growing food for people who needed it and growing bio fuels instead for clunkers that didn’t. And the effect of that was to cause, or at least contribute to, the doubling of World food prices. It happened in just a few years. This caused riots in a dozen regions of the World. Virtually none of these riots, was reported. Food riots, people starve and they will riot because they’re desperate to get food. You only have a food riot if there’s real starvation. It doesn’t happen otherwise. Food riots in a dozen regions of the World, all happening at the same time, all for essentially the same reason, that bio fuels were squeezing out normal food production.
And if, in a fairly well-balanced market, which the food market was until that time, you suddenly take out a chunk, even quite a small chunk, that was many tens of millions of acres of agricultural land, that will be enough to trigger a huge increase in the price of the raw commodities that are produced by farming. And so, you know, people naively say, “Oh, but you know, you’d have to take out half the agricultural land in order to double our food prices”. No, it doesn’t work like that, as you know. And once you put the pressure on prices, up they go. And that’s what happened at this moment that people were starving all over the world, rioting because they were starving, the Western press hardly mentioned it at all. They’re not interested.
Fight against disease
Yesterday, at the Heartland Conference, I said “Look, instead of spending all this money on sustainable development and climate change and so on, all of it is completely wasted, it only cost 8 dollars to save the life of a victim of trichiasis, which is a disease caused by the trachoma parasite, which gets into the eye and it causes the eyelashes to grow inward and pierce the eyeball; you eventually go blind. And it’s one of the most acutely painful conditions known to man; of course you end up blind of it. And this can be cured for 8 dollars by a simple, existing operation. I mentioned this yesterday and I said, “That would be a far better use than these 80 billion dollars that the US alone has spent on climate change and environmental this and that over the last few years. There you could do some real good, because is not Man part of the environment too? If people are going blind because they’re being attacked by a parasite in countries too poor to provide the elementary medication necessary, shouldn’t we help them with that? Wouldn’t that be a sensible proportionate Agenda 21 to pursue?”
And here is how the Left is already reporting what I said. They said I can personally, I’m claiming that I can personally cure these people of their blindness for 8 dollars.
(Dykes) Well, there’re many diseases they know they can address.
(Monckton) And then here I am making stuff up. This is a line that is totally unprincipled: they don’t mind how many people they kill because for them, if you kill people or they go blind or whatever and they can’t be obviously productive, that will be good for the Planet, because they see Man as a parasite upon the Planet, as harmful to the Planet. They have these very, very extreme views, which they don’t really believe, but they will recite them because what they really want is absolute global domination, and this is simply the pretext.
(Dykes) Let me ask you this too about the Developing World. We know there’ve been problems with IMF and World Bank conditional loans. In some cases they’ve actually tied population reduction to World Bank loans and other United Nation stuff. Aren’t the actual aid packages (29:21) out of these UN conferences also gonna be a similar kind of problem where their vision of development is reducing population and for these Third World countries to get this aid money they’ve got to go along with these policies?
(Monckton) This is very true. For many, many decades now the British government has had a policy that unless you have a population program by which they mean a de-population program by enforced artificial contraception, or abortion, both, then you cannot receive British aid. And this is not really known about in Parliament, who, if it knew anything about this, even nowadays, I feel they wouldn’t do anything about this. But that’s what the bureaucrats do. They say unless you have a de-population program we won’t give you any aid. And so this, in effect, forces contraception and abortion on countries say in Africa or South America where both of these things are actually alien to their religion and alien to their culture.
It’s not the way they do things. But increasingly the aggressiveness, the aggressive anti-humaness of these wretched extreme Left faction is saying, “Well, we must do-down the World’s population”. And because the poorer countries of Africa they have no vote, they don’t have a proper democracy, they don’t have a voice, these people, we can send in the UN troops and shoot them dead and take their land in the name of making it into a carbon sink and kicking them off it. And nobody will really know or care very much, because these are little people that really ought not to exist in the first place. It’s this contempt, racionistic [sic] in the worst sense,
(Dykes) Oh absolutely.
(Monckton) for those who are poorer than they and who don’t have a voice – or a vote. And so the thing I would say is those who are listening to this who do have a voice, and a vote: use the voice, loudly, and the vote, carefully, and make absolutely sure that you do not vote for candidates of whatever party who do not understand the dangers that now exist in transferring power from elected hands here to unelected hands somewhere else. The correct approach is to say that before any more agreements are signed at any international conference whether on the climate or sustainable development and these new annual conferences on that subject, which I`m quite sure are going to emerge from Rio, no more of these treaties should be signed unless and until the bodies exercising the governing power globally under these treaties have been elected.
(Dykes) Lord Monckton, we wanna make sure we are firing back against these conferences. Tell us one more time when Rio is coming up and the next climate conference. Tell us your website and where we can find your statements and ways to fight back.
(Monckton) Certainly. Well, first of all, scienceandpublicpolicy.org. You’ll find a lot about the climate written by me there. Click on Monckton Papers, when you get to the Home page; and for another climate website, wattsupwiththat.com, w-a-t-t-s, wattsupwiththat.com, run by Anthony Watts, a formidable meteorologist who has exposed the corruption in the temperature monitoring stations in the US and elsewhere, and has this blog which now gets, I think, one or two hundred thousand hits a month, I mean, it’s very, very big in telling people the other side of the story on these climate environmental matters, and I contribute to that quite regularly too, so you’ll certainly be able to use that. And as to Rio, it’s coming up in mid-June. It will be three days, roughly speaking, the 19th to the 21st of June is the culmination of a couple of weeks of messing about. I’ll be going just for the last three days, so we have a presence there and can put the other side. I am an accredited delegate to the Conference, so I will be able to get in and I will be able to speak to other delegates. The will hate it, but I don’t think that they will dare try to exclude me on flimsy grounds a second time.
I think they learned the lesson of not doing that, ‘cause it was all over the newspapers worldwide that they tried this on because they feared what I would do. They were right to fear it. When I reported the “loopy” things they put in the Durban Declaration, which they then had to take out, such as rights of legal personality for Mother Earth, the establishment of an international climate court, reduction of carbon dioxide concentration from 400, it is now, to 200 parts per million by volume in the atmosphere. Halfing it, that would lead to the mass death of plants and trees worldwide, and of the animals and humans that depend upon them. These and other barking nonsensical proposals were dropped. Within 24 hours they had divided the final negotiating documents in two. One half of it continued to be negotiated and the other half was put on the shelf. So being there, just to expose and to tell the world what is being negotiated in its name, that’s what the press used to do, they used to report what happened at these conferences! Now they don’t! They go there, and they talk all about the grass skirts and they talk all about the agenda, but they don’t talk about what’s actually being said, because so much to it is loopy.
And so when I published this on Wattsupwiththat, this summary that was in this document at Durban, that was the most popular of the 500 thousand blog postings that went on the internet that day, under the Wordpress system, because Wordpress keeps a tally and more people visited that blog posting than any other worldwide on any subject that day. Now was this because I was a clever guy, no. It was because the press had simply deliberately willfully not done its job of saying what was happening at this conference. And so I said what was happening, the World was horrified, it went right around the world, and all the blogs had it.
Virtually none of the mainstream news media touched it. But the story got out and the UN realized the game was up, and it had to cut the document in two. The same thing happened to Copenhagen, where I revealed the world government’s agenda a few weeks before the conference, and the entire treaty was dropped, they just couldn’t proceed with the treaty at all. Because the treaty only said we’re going to set up a world government and here’s 186 pages on how it’s going to be structured and paid for, and they had no plan B, they had to drop it.
And so they know if I go to these things I will do damage, not by throwing a bomb, or even throwing a wrench into the works, but simply by saying: this is what they are up to, you need to know. And I will make sure that Alex Jones and you get told what is actually happening at these conferences.
(Dykes) Basically just “the emperor wears no clothes”. They’d be loony, crazy people if they weren’t so draconian.
Hatred for humanity
(Monckton) That’s the point. What they’re proposing is loopy. I mean, can you imagine cutting carbon dioxide concentration down by half, even if it was within our gift to do that. Can you imagine the damage, the death, the widespread destruction that this would cause? They don’t care. They would regard that as a bonus. Some of them would like to see the whole of humanity, sometimes with the sole exception of themselves, wiped off the face of the Planet. This agenda is real hatred for humanity.
And in particular, real hatred for the West. This combination is very, very dangerous, and very, very real, and virtually not talked about. Because, hey, if you say these people have actually gone around saying, some of them, that they want to wipe out 6 humans in 7, you are regarded as some kind of extremist lunatic. But this is what these people are saying, some of them. That is not to say that all of them are saying it, but they are saying it. This is the language that’s being used by the hard Left. And, rather than ignoring it and saying “Well, that’s so fringe we can’t even mention it.” You have to mention it because otherwise it stops being fringe and more people start saying it.
(Dykes) It might be fringe if they weren’t the chosen spokespeople of various elite factions.
(Monckton) I’ll give you a nice example which I mentioned, earlier today on the Alex Jones Show. James Hanson of NASA said several years ago that anyone who would dare to question his views about the climate should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. And, of course, I and a few others spoke out against this, the outrageous suggestion that we should be put on trial because what is the penalty for a crime against humanity? It is – death. And what Hanson is really saying is that people like me should be killed.
And so I said “This is extreme”, I had complained, actually, to the inspector general of NASA, who did absolutely nothing about it, because NASA has now been retasked on a similar package (37:43) package as a “climate change monitoring agency”, and not a space agency, and so they’re making so much money out of this climate scare that they won’t touch Hanson, even though they should have fired him years ago. He’s endlessly being arrested by the men in blue coats, time, in my view, he was arrested by the men in white coats. But what is intriguing about this is that he made the suggestion a few years ago about let’s put the likes of Monckton on trial for crimes against humanity, because they dared to make scientific and economic questions about the climate story. That’s our only crime, but that he wants us to be killed for. And you think, that is loopy. Of course that is loopy! It’s wildly extremist, the kind of thing the Nazis did, the Fascists did, the Communists did
(Dykes) There was a Norwegian professor the other day who said he wants 500 democracies, dangerous has no place, and he personally has no problem identifying with Hitler and other dictatorships, as long as it leads to that environmental end.
(Monckton) That is the point. And, of course, Hitler was one of the first environmentalists. The whole folks movement was devoted to this. But, you see, what is happening now is that at Penn State University, just a few days ago, they had a conference sponsored by local businesses which was on how to silence the climate deniers, and the guy introducing this was some sort of a professor who appeared to be hopped up on some sort of drug, I watched this on the video that they made of it, but he was way spaced out! But he said “We have to start a conversation on declaring climate skepticism to be a crime against humanity.”
And you see, when they start saying one after the other, you know that this is becoming the party line. And if we don’t nip it in the bud straight away, it will become the party line, everybody will think in the end, “Oh of course it’s perfectly alright to kill climate skeptics that are just inconvenient to us”. The moment you start going down that extremist road without anyone challenging it, the extremist road can all too easily become the normal road, it’s happened so many times in History before. And it seems to me the role of programs like the Alex Jones Network, as it’s now becoming, is precisely to sound the warning. And sometimes people will say “The warning sounds as though it’s been too extremist in its sounding, but if you don’t blow the trumpet loudly people won’t hear you.
As the Bible says, I forget exactly where, but “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall go forth to battle?” And here on this program, you give forth a certain and very definite sound, and if people find that deafening, so they should. Because if that message doesn’t get through, then the war will be won, by these cooks who would declare it a crime against humanity to dare to raise legitimate scientific doubts about the climate story.
Forbidden to "disagree"
We know now, for instance, that the NOAA has said that if for 15 years there hasn’t been any global warming, the models are wrong. The story line must change. They said that in 2008. Here we are 4 years later, we’ve now had 15 years on any measure and past 20 on some measures without any global warming at all and the NOAA’s words must now be remembered. The climate story line is wrong. The models were incorrect, they over predicted the amount of warming to be expected, it hasn’t happened, it isn’t happening, it won’t happen, there is no scientific basis for it to happen, and even if it were to happen, it would still be cheaper to do nothing about it. And yet, even with these very powerful scientific and economic points in favor of the skeptical point of view, Hanson began it, Penn State University has continued it, those who dare to make the points like these I’ve just made are told that we should be treated as though we have committed a crime against humanity and killed. That’s where it’s going. That’s how extreme and blinkered those people are.
Now we can do nothing but pray for their souls, because in Catholic theology there is a principle which is known as invincible ignorance. Some people are simply unwilling to recognize that there are two sides to a question. Even when it’s quite clear from the scientific evidence that there are two sides. Hey, if it isn’t warming as they said it would in their first report in 1990 on all this, why should they be right now when they were wrong then?
(Dykes) As you know, they don’t care if it cools, if it warms, that’s an absolute value pretext for their absolute control model.
It doesn’t matter what you do, they’ll blame everything on global warming
(Monckton) Yes, that’s very nicely put, yes, I like that, that’s a neat termed phrase, I congratulate you on that. An absolute value pretext for their absolute rule. That is it. They are trying to say that any change is wrong. And of course then if it stops changing they will say the climate stasis is unnatural too. It doesn’t matter what you do, they’ll blame everything on global warming. I had an email today from a Marxist in the UK, name of Martin Lack who said why didn’t I accept that I got everything wrong because various propaganda websites had said that I got everything wrong. And I said, well, I don’t do propaganda, I’m just looking at this thing as a layman and admittedly I’m not a scientist, I do my best as a reasonably competent mathematician so that I can differentiate an equation without fainting and I can read a scientific paper and understand it because it’s written in the language of Science, which is Mathematics, and I understand that. So, I can read these papers, I can come to a view which is by no means an isolated or unique view, there are many scientists who hold that view and indeed I met hundreds of them at the Heartland Conference just yesterday.
So the idea that anyone who dares to raise scientific doubts about a question where the data have now established that it is we who are right and they who are wrong, and their only way of dealing with this is say we must be killed, that doesn’t seem to me to be very grown up. I said on Alex Jones Show earlier today that if you are thinking of sending your kid to Penn State University or of giving it any money whatsoever, whatever you do, don’t. A university that allows that sort of suggestion to be made, that sort of hate speech to be put out from its own lecture theatres, without any restraint, that does not deserve to be called a university at all, it must be closed down, in my view. And then we can put some of the people there on trial for crimes against academic propriety, which the penalty is not death, it is permanent exclusion from any academic post.
(Dykes) I think they need to investigate that too, from what I recall of that.
(Monckton) Ah, they might well do, you might recall that there’s a man there who, his name is Mann, in fact, who fabricated, I think that’s probably the appropriate word, a graph purporting to demonstrate that there was no Medieval Warm Period and that therefore the last one hundred years have been warmer than any previous time in the last 1300 years. That was the story line. And, of course, that is not the consensus in the literature. Of course they always say, “We must do science by consensus. Consensus is an appropriate way of doing Science”. Of course it isn’t. Aristotle knew that 2300 years ago.
But, if they like to do Science by consensus, then they should remember this: that the consensus among the peer reviewed papers of paleoclimatology reconstructing the temperatures of the past 1000 years is that the Medieval Warm Period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. And my good friend Dr. Craig said so. I saw him yesterday at this Conference. He maintains a database of CO2Science.com of papers on the Medieval Warm Period. And these papers were written by, between them, more than a thousand scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries in the last 25 years. – Each providing data and evidence from reconstructions of what happened before we had thermometers over the last thousand years, that the Medieval warm period was indeed real, and global, and warmer than the present. And it was a man at Penn State University who tried to deny all that. So who is the denier? Not a bad question, hey?
Well, thank you very much for joining us, lord Monckton. We look forward to your fighting back against all these avenues of tyranny that are coming our way, and we really appreciate you joining us in-studio.
(Monckton) Well, it’s been a real pleasure. God bless you all, here at the Alex Jones Show and the Nightly News. I hope this reaches many people. God bless you all who’ve been watching and, as always, God bless America.
(Dykes) Same to you. Thank you sir.