All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:12:04
20120523_Wed_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Aaron Dyches.
Today is Wednesday, May 23, 2012, and we have a special Bilderberg breakdown for you just ahead.
So you already underscored the eugenics behind all this, that they want to reduce the world population almost all the way, 90 plus percent basically.
They want to take six-sevenths of it away.
Lord Mocton joins us in studio as he discovers Agenda 21's globalist death plan to kill six-sevenths of the population.
Then, the Facebook scandal heats up while the power behind the throne that is Bilderberg prepare to descend on Chantilly, Virginia.
There, they are set to choose vice presidential running mates and once again play kingmaker in U.S. politics.
All that and more up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
First up tonight, the Facebook IPO has fallen into total controversy as the value of the shares have fallen Investors are going crazy, people are laying blame everywhere, and people are wondering what is the future of Facebook.
Now we predicted last week in our special report A, pointing out all the important connections between the Bilderberg Group and the important founder and funder circles around Facebook and other top technology.
Now, they are looking to review Morgan Stanley's regulation practices, also that of Goldman Sachs, to see if, in fact, there was an insider tip that the stock was overvalued just before it went public, and whether or not that warning actually went out to all investors or just a few insiders.
Of course, we know that among others, Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel on the steering committee of Bilderberg cashed in mega shares and there it is in MarketWatch.
They put even more shares on the market than they initially planned, really dovetailing with the speculation that there may have been some foul play with the early warning on the Facebook IPO.
We predicted it may well be a pump-and-dump stock scam.
That remains to be seen as the fine print will fall.
But certainly Facebook has been making a lot of headlines.
Please check out my special report from last week about the Facebook IPO, Sean Parker, Peter Thiel and all the other Bilderbergers around that circle.
Now, today on the Drudge Report, he linked to my article, Mark of the Beast, Bilderberg pushes mandatory Internet ID for Europe.
And indeed, in the heels of PIPA, SOPA, ACT-A treaty, and everything else that's going down, now CISPA inside the United States, the European Union is looking to mandate some kind of electronic signature online ID system that would be used for all online access, Most of commerce and all kinds of other verification and authentication.
Behind the deal is one Neely Crows.
She's been going to Bilderberg, well, religiously, since the year 2005.
In the article, I've got links to the membership rosters where she shows up officially year after year.
2005-2006 in Ottawa, Canada, 2007 in Istanbul, 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia, 2009 in Vologemne, Greece, 2010 in Sitge, Spain, and of course last year at St. Mary's.
Moritz, where Neely Crows showed up with a brand new title, not only on the EU's Commission, but now the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, and boy did they have a digital agenda they were pursuing.
It's no coincidence all those tech heads from Microsoft people to Google, Eric Schmidt of course, and all the Facebook people converged around cybercom leader General Keith Alexander and around the EU's Commissioner for the Digital Agenda and the US counterpart for antitrust and all the others and they laid out this plan and they've been pursuing it and we're seeing it in action now so they want a mandatory internet ID so they can control the web.
It's that simple.
Meanwhile, it dovetails with Kurt Nemo's report from today.
New York bill outlaws internet political speech.
And so a New York Republican, Jim Conte, has declared himself an enemy of the First Amendment and is pushing a so-called Internet Protection Act.
All this lingo we've seen time and again.
With proposals that have fallen off the way and those that are going to make it to the finish line.
And they're trying to protect people from cyber bullying by taking it out on the First Amendment.
And otherwise, as I said, trying to clamp down on the Internet.
Alex has exposed this agenda for how long now?
And here it is coming into play.
It's all true.
You've got to do the research for yourself.
See what their vision is for Internet 2, the kill switch, all of it.
Meanwhile, Bilderberg Group changed their chairman.
It had been Etienne D'Avignon for many years.
It quietly changed to the head of AXA Insurance Group out of France, Henri de Castries, and it turns out he was a good friend and business school Uh, alumni alongside of Francois Hollande, who is of course just elected president in France, uh, the first socialist president in some time, I think.
At any rate, the head of the Bilderberg Group is quite chummy with Hollande, and there it is in Bloomberg and other sources about how they all went to HEC Paris, one of the top business schools, and other pedigree as well.
Other people, including officer Jean-Paul Agnon, French telecom chief Stéphane Richard, and others all ran with the socialist Francois Hollande.
So appearances are not what they seem.
Bilderberg and other elite groups do play both sides.
They don't really care what the system is as long as they have a mode for control over the population.
Now, you may recall the report from a few weeks ago about how Goldman rules the world.
Certainly in Europe they've made a major impact.
You've got people like Peter Sutherland over BP Oil and Goldman Sachs director out of Ireland.
You've got Mario Monti taking over as the top technocrat without an election in Italy.
You've got the heads of state and finance in Greece and more all part of the Bilderberg Group, so we know that's a major part of their plank.
Of course, Ednier Davignon, the former chairman of the Bilderberg Group, bragged a few years ago back in 2009 that the group had indeed brought the euro into livelihood, had nurtured it along for Really 50 years as part of the European community project that emerged into the EU and which of course went hand-in-hand with the currency.
They've got a quote there about how really the goal was for people to understand confusedly there's a change in the air, but no government will satisfy the reactions of the people.
They have the greatest reticence and cynicism against everybody who holds responsibility.
That's just a partial quote from Davignon.
They have complete contempt for the actual people.
That's why they want these authoritarian government circles that can run around, do an end run around sovereignty and any existing laws.
Now, of course, it has emerged that in 2012, one of their primary agenda goals will be to save the euro.
Obviously, that's on the table, but we're going to bring you more of the agenda as well.
Paul Joseph Watson reported several weeks ago after the Washington Post surprisingly broke their Bilderberg silence.
Washington Post sends representatives from the Graham family every year to Bilderberg.
They know full well what's going on but have basically never reported on it this year.
However, they are suggesting the Bilderberg group may help pick the vice presidential running mate for Mitt Romney.
A lot of speculation that could be Rubio.
A lot of talk about Bilderberg and Rubio in general getting other organizations like Politico and other pseudo mainstream organizations talking about Bilderberg for virtually the first time.
Now, as we lead into that, we can remember the Bilderberg attendee who helped choose Obama's VP running mate, James A. Johnson.
listen.
He was the former CEO of Fannie Mae.
He became embattled in a scandal when it emerged he got some really questionable loans from Countrywide and the whole scandal surrounding Angelo Mazzello and really played a questionable role in the popping of the housing bubble.
Now he's in another scandal, not dealing with choosing the running mate, but with the fact that he's been one of the longest serving board members of Goldman Sachs, who, as we noted, rules the world.
Now, some counter-elite factions, including the Sequoia Fund, And if I'm not mistaken, Warren Buffett are opposing his reelection, really saying his scandal's been too out in the open and it's not a good signal to reelect him to the board.
Of course, it's likely that he will be reelected to the board, but it just illustrates the extremely close ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama presidency.
Again, James A. Johnson openly in the press had the role of helping choose Obama's VP running mate.
When the scandal emerged with Fannie Mae and Countrywide, he suddenly stepped down just a couple days after the Bilderberg Group met back in 2008 at the same location they're meeting this year in Chantilly, Virginia.
Very, very interesting stuff.
And he just quietly stepped down and Obama said, well, James A. Johnson might be Goldman Sachs, but he was an unpaid volunteer, so let's not pay attention to those connections.
After all, I'm for the people, hope change.
And, of course, James A. Johnson not only helped pick Obama's VP in 2008, he had a very public role in helping to pick John Kerry's running mate, which was John Edwards, who again went to the Bilderberg meeting in 2004, long before he himself was caught up in scandal.
And had Kerry won the presidency, James A. Johnson probably would have been in the inner coterie with the cabinet position.
He also previously helped people like Walter Mondale pick their VPs.
So a very important player, again tied to Goldman Sachs, countrywide, the housing bubble.
That's what I wanted to say because in 2006, it came out of the Bilderberg meeting, the first time I ever went in Ottawa, Canada, that they had decided to pop the housing bubble.
Nobody could have called that if it wasn't truly from inside the Bilderberg group.
And yet, two years later, everything started happening in 2008, and guys like James A. Johnson have their fingerprints all over it.
But it's not just the Democratic wing of the Bilderberg Group.
It's not just Goldman Sachs.
As you well know, the elite circle of Bilderberg loves to play both sides.
They love to play kingmaker, especially in U.S.
politics.
And now you've got Obama surrogate Cory Booker, who's the gun-grabbing mayor of Newark, New Jersey, very close to the Wall Street circles based in New York City, speaking out on private equity.
There's been all the attacks inside Obama's campaign against Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital and against people like Henry Kravis of KKR, who in fact That is a lifelong Bilderberg attendee.
I think he's been going since he was in diapers.
In fact, he's the only member of the Bilderberg group whose wife is also an attendee and she's on the steering group.
At any rate, you've got Cory Booker so close to Wall Street there telling people to shut up about bashing Bain Capital and the whole venture capital and Equity industry in general because New Jersey has a lot riding on it.
In fact, Blackstone Group goes to Bilderberg and elements of KKR have bought out pension funds all across the country from employees, state employees, you name it.
Including in New Jersey for billions, including in Texas they bought out the teachers retirement system for I think $3 billion.
And Alex warned you, so did Max Keiser, so did Bob Chapman and all the other experts that they were going to play with the pension funds.
You won't have them because they're all tied up in derivatives and these leveraged buyouts.
So let's take a closer look.
Why does Cory Booker defend Henry Kravis, and who is Henry Kravis?
One of the biggest bundlers for the Mitt Romney campaign, deeply, deeply tied to the Bush family, really a long-term supporter of them as well.
He's best known for the book and movie Barbarians at the Gate, describing his takeover, leveraged buyout, hostile takeover of RJR Nabisco in the late 80s and 90s.
A very interesting film because he will buy these gigantic companies with very little money say perhaps 10%, and then use debt and leverage debt to buy out the company, defeat competitors, and really stack the dominoes in a very vulnerable way that has indeed played out in the larger economic crisis.
Here's some of the video of him arriving last year in 2011 with his wife at the Bilderberg Group.
It's not the greatest video, but if you look carefully, you can see that's Kravis on the right hand and his wife, Marie-José, on the left hand.
She, of course, is the head of the Hudson Institute, a veritable continuation of the Rand Corporation and a so-called conservative think tank.
KKR is also involved in green eco-fascism, and they bundle portfolios for that.
There's also been a lot of reports on what will Mitt Romney's foreign policy agenda be, and guess what?
It again connects back to key Bilderbergers.
They've raised some questions about the Afghan war.
Of course, we know people like Mitt Romney will never be anti-war candidates.
They will never help reign in the American empire.
Romney, Rubio, all these other people are still pandering to the neocon part of the Republican Party while kind of acting like maybe it's about time to get out of Afghanistan since that's now on Obama's watch.
Now it's emerged that among Romney's top advisors and potential cabinet appointees may be CFR President Richard Haass, who we heckled at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting right there in Chantilly.
He attends, I think, every year at Bilderberg and has an important role to play at the Council on Foreign Relations, patentedly anti-American.
He may become a cabinet member.
He was previously a policy planning at the State Department.
official from 2001 to 2003 in the Bush administration.
Further, former World Bank President Robert Zolik may join the Romney cabinet.
That's all according to Prospect.
The American Prospect.
The Romney Foreign Policy Agenda.
And so I've done my own research by studying the names and how they connect with the larger agenda.
Who are these people who meet at Bilderberg secretly every year?
And indeed it pulls up stuff like this.
Democrats and Bain.
People raise the question, why is Bain Capital donating more to the Democratic Party than to the GOP if the nominee is Romney who used to work for Bain?
Well obviously they both represent Finance, capital, they both represent crony capitalism, Wall Street, the elite of the elite who are selling this country and the whole rest of the world down the drain easy.
Let's make a comparison now between that mock video attacking Romney for being a serial killer of corporations with the kind of action that people like Henry Kravis of KKR do.
When they do a leverage buyout and rip and shred the company as one might hollow out a fruit, or as a vampire might hollow out the blood from his victim, or a vulture from Carrion.
Let's play that clip now.
Mitt Romney has a secret.
As head of Bain Capital, he bought companies, carved them up, and got rid of what he couldn't use.
If Mitt Romney really believes... Corporations are people, my friend.
Then Mitt Romney is a serial killer.
He's Mitt the Ripper.
Henry Kravis and company have participated in 160 takeovers and borrowed a large part of $320 billion to do so.
The private equity corporations make sweetheart deals with the banks to finance these takeovers.
Then they pump and dump the companies they control, often resulting in lost jobs for workers, the destruction of communities that rely on the companies, and extreme profiteering for the private equity corporations.
Kravis and KKR, like all the private equity giants, take over public companies using primarily borrowed money.
To pay off this debt, they then sell the assets of the companies, fire thousands of workers, and radically cut benefits of the remaining employees.
It is the same product, in the same building, with the same customers as before.
And so again, they've already rooted all your savings through this financial crisis.
Now they're buying up pension funds and the rest of it.
Both sides of this false spectrum are very predatory, and we have to start to recognize that.
Now, we've talked about how much these elites hate humanity.
That's going to come up in depth with Lord Monckton on the other side of this break.
But first, we'll take you to the quote of the day from the Club of Rome's 1991 publication, The First Global Revolution.
They said, in searching for a new enemy to unite us, We came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention and thus the real enemy then is humanity itself.
Humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government.
So, again, man is the enemy, world government is the answer.
Now, today was the launch of PlanetInfoWars.com.
We urge you to go check out that website, sign up for it, and begin your own mini InfoWars network.
Maybe a very large part of the InfoWars network.
The point is, you can put up your own content, you can put stories up you think are important, you can create your own videos, your own newscasts.
Get friends together, network with people you want to know, possibly date people, get groups together that like to hunt, like to fish, like to do survival skills, prepping, you name it.
Planet Info Wars will become what you make of it.
The point is to get in there and start resistance using the tools we have now while we still have a relatively free internet which we have pointed out time and again they're trying to clamp down upon.
PlanetInfoWars.com Launch today, and now is the time to take advantage of it.
And don't forget to be a PrisonPlanet.tv subscriber, too, if you want to help out this broadcast financially.
Help us support the platforms that allow all you great people to do your own work on sites like PlanetInfoWars.com.
We'll be back after this with Lord Moncton.
Stay tuned.
I'm Aaron Dykes.
Have you been to InfoWarsShop.com lately?
Express your inner patriot with these brand new InfoWars t shirts.
Say it loud with the InfoWars Bullhorn shirt, or educate the sheeple with the Bill of Rights shirt.
Grope the public's mind with the TSA shirt.
And with this shirt, you can let the dark side know of the Rebel Alliance's power.
All available at InfoWarsShop.com.
PlanetInfoWars.com is in its beta phase.
We're just launching it.
And I want to invite all of you out there to be in on the ground level.
It's waiting for you to breathe power into it.
PlanetInfoWars.com.
All who love liberty are welcome.
All that serve tyranny will be defeated.
It's now out in the open.
World government is here.
It's in our face.
A corporate fascist system surveilling us.
Google, Facebook, Twitter all promote the New World Order.
They attend Bilderberg.
They've turned the internet into a giant illegal spying operation with Google admitting that they're basically an NSA, CIA front.
But despite all of that, their little propaganda stunts like Kony 2012 have been blowing up in their face because we have people power.
Planet Info Wars is about people coming together, forming activist organizations, getting involved politically, hunting and fishing, gardening, dating.
Whatever the case is, this is a place for people who love freedom.
And that's why I have created PlanetInfoWars.com.
...as a vehicle for you to meet, and to talk, and to write, and to post information.
This is your tool, your website, and I want to invite all the other alternative media to come in to PlanetInfoWars.com and to synergistically meet and turn loose your potential.
For more than six years, I've talked on the air about creating a social network.
But I was so busy with my radio show, the documentaries, all of it, that I never did it properly.
We launched a small little plug-in social network.
It got more than 40,000 members in just a few months and basically crashed.
And then I never revisited the subject until the last year.
And I went out to a public event, a UFC fight.
Joe Rogan invited me to it in Austin.
And two different couples came up to me and said, man, we wish you'd set up a social network again.
Where did it go?
And I said, oh, it was just some little free program.
It couldn't handle all the traffic.
And in both cases, at that same evening, they said, we met four different people, two couples, on your little plug-in site at InfoWars.com, and we now have children.
And since then, it's happened a couple other times.
So, I realized a social network is important, so people who love freedom can get together.
That's what Liberty Lovers is going to be all about, a section we've created at PlanetInfoWars.com.
Whether you live in a small town or a big city, You can reach out to people in your area so that we can win the future away from Obama and Mitt Romney and all these globalists that try to give us all these fake choices.
And I give you this pledge.
We are not going to spy on you and surveil you and sell your data to the New World Order.
PlanetInfoWars.com is free.
PlanetinfoWars.com is powered by you.
We're gonna have our articles up there, we'll have video feeds and stuff up there, but this is all about you getting together and organizing the resistance against the New World Order.
Ron Paul's been great, but he himself has said this is simply a focal point for people that are already awake.
Well, this is Ron Paul 2.0.
This is Alex Jones 3.0.
This is Humanity 4.0 to the power of infinity.
This is about taking action.
This is about turning humanity loose.
Connect with people who are awake and know what we're facing.
Be active.
Organize.
Take action.
Go viral.
Create.
Contribute.
Resist.
Because resistance is victory.
You are victory.
And the rally point is planetinfowars.com.
Thank you.
Start purifying your water with ProPure.
My friends, I've done a lot of research and the best gravity filter out there bar none is ProPure.
And it's available discounted at InfoWars.com.
Its filters are silver impregnated to prevent bacterial growth.
There's no priming required.
It's NSF 42 certified.
Optional fluoride filters can reduce fluoride up to 95%.
Easy to set up and use.
Doesn't require electricity.
Purify water from lakes, streams, ponds, and wells.
This filter system leaves in beneficial minerals, which is key.
Save money by not buying bottled water.
And avoid BPA that leaches from the plastic.
ProPure is the best gravity-fed filter out there.
It's what my family uses.
Infowars.com already has the lowest price on ProPure.
But if you add the promo code WATER at checkout, you get an additional 10% off at Infowars.com.
You can also call to order 888-253-3139.
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.
We want to take over our world, curb civilization, and really put us in our place.
We're not going to let that happen, of course.
Thank you for joining us, Lord 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.
Well, it was only a few years ago Al Gore and company 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 at the past few meetings.
They've really had their agenda stalled.
But at the same time, we have the revival of Agenda 21 this year, Rio plus 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.
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.
You 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 RioPlus20 conference Is to suggest that the nations of the West have been raping the planet with their 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 five billion of our present, I think it's six billion of our present, seven billion, must be done away with.
And it's down to be having not 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 conferences, 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.
But what I think they're going to try to do is to follow a route which the EU 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 EU.
With these 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 storyline.
And yet at the end of the process you suddenly find you've lost your nation, you've lost your democracy, you've lost your parliament.
We still have one, we still have elections, but they mean nothing.
Five, six of our laws being made by someone else.
And the UN has 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 effect of treaties, even though the Senate doesn't ratify them.
Until you get to the point where the UN is suddenly wound 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 EU, 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 EU.
It has suddenly realised that if the UN takes global domination, Then the EU will be subservient to it.
And they've suddenly realised they don't like that.
So there's a wonderful irony.
They've been taking all this 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 that the advice they've been giving the UN on how to do this ...is going to lead to their own subjugation to the UN.
And the EU 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 this reason, they're not even going to send an EU delegation to the UN Climate Conference, the UN Sustainable Development Conference in Rio.
But I will be there, because it's very necessary that the...
The superficially admirable goal of sustainable development should be one which is implemented sensibly and not by unelected international authorities such as the UN.
This brings me really on to another problem which is beginning to emerge when you look at things like the Rio Plus 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 EU isn't.
The UN isn't.
The Law of the Sea Conference, very topical at the moment because there's 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 shall be handed over by the Congress of the United States to any supranational or global entity.
Unless that supranational or global entity is one who's 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 organisation unless that organisation is elected by the states parties to the treaty setting it up.
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, that's really what sustainable development's all about.
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, centralising that power in regional and increasingly now in global institutions.
Where does this leave the individual?
You are now 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 government, or even 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.
And there's a 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 it is possible for that decision to be taken.
So, for instance, really nobody except the family itself needs to decide what kind of light bulbs its children will read by.
That is not the business even of the local authorities, let alone national, supranational or global ones.
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 groupings, such as the UN at the Sustainable Development Conference, to take away from the individual the powers and the rights of decision which properly belong to him and his family.
And 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 call it, the classe politique, worldwide, is now guilty of, is a desire to micromanage.
This, of course, At one level, all government is instinctually totalitarian.
And by totalitarian I mean desiring to interfere in every little detail of our lives, lightbulbs 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 the 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 legislature.
That's where this constitution starts.
All legislative power in the hands of the Congress that you elect.
Nobody else has any unless the 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 via 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 shall 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.
Yeah, and they have a pattern of usurpation, and some of the top globalists talked about, probably 50 years ago, how they're trying to do an end-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 set up something called the Rural Council that has everybody from Homeland Security to Department of Defense to EPA on it.
And they said, well, we want to crack down on farms because of the environment, blah, blah, blah.
So we're going to have the EPA regulating dust.
We're going to have the Transportation Department regulating who's allowed to ride on a tractor or run a vehicle.
And slap on all these other types of licensing components to try to do an end run around individual farming and the ability to run your own communities.
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 to, 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 of all, you do it by regulation.
Regulating farming so that it becomes less profitable.
Shutting down the fossil fuel industries as best you can.
There's 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, and 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.
We'll definitely give it a try first, anyway.
Well, that would be, I think, the way forward.
And so you always have to watch out for the Democrats trying to do down 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're always at it.
They're always encroaching in various ways.
For instance, the Heartland Institute, which is a right-wing think tank.
And I spoke at their conference in Chicago just yesterday.
They were very interesting.
They are now being encircled by the left who are writing and telephoning individually and emailing the donors whom they found out by a trick.
A fellow called Peter Gleick who wrote a bogus memo and put in a bogus email address saying that he was one of the trustees and could they please send him all the board papers including the list of funders.
That was 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 and 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.
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 proposing to set up a global democratic government, what they're actually bringing to an end is democracy itself.
The democracy which your founding fathers intended you to have, and, if you could, to keep it.
Yeah, it would have been nice.
Now 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 could 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 going to see at Rio Plus 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's talking about Agenda 21 catching up to what they probably didn't know about 20 years ago for this kind of anniversary meeting.
That's quite right.
People are much more aware of these poisonous words, Agenda 21, than they were.
They now realise that 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 Eric Ellington, 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'd joined it, because the Marxists had moved in and taken it over, and 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 the fig leaf.
You know, it's a green fig leaf over a red instrument beneath, shall 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 EU 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.
And the way they're going to do it, because 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 already I've got hold of them, that they are intending to follow the same sort of thing as the EU 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 can always justify where they were told to do it.
But in effect, what they're doing is expanding their power base and then sending the bill to governments and saying, well, you had this meeting, you signed this document, now you've got to pay.
I don't know if it's the appropriate metaphor, but it makes me think of throwing a stone into a pond and a small circle gets bigger until it's surrounding the whole area they want to conquer.
That's exactly what happens, and they want to expand the centre to the point where 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 get into Parliament.
What would be the point?
You can go into Parliament, you can vote for what you like.
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 agents in the same way that Brussels did.
You know, the UN High Commission for Refugees, the UN Children's Fund, the UN Environment Programme.
They're all multiplying.
More and more of them.
Every time I go to one of these UN conferences, there's another three or four of them.
And now something like 150 individual UN agencies, each separately funded by the taxpayers, 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.
It was in Britain that the idea of recording the proceedings of Parliament first came about, with Hansard producing a daily record of what was said.
And this happens, of course, in your Congress.
Now, there's 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 whether what you said was sensible or not.
But in the EU...
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 ceremonial, as Alex Jones calls it.
It's just decoration.
And they, even if they vote it down...
The Commissars can reintroduce it either via the same process again until the Parliament gives in, which they've done on many occasions, or simply directly, as what's called a Commission Regulation, bypassing the elected Parliament altogether, and indeed all the elected Parliaments of Europe altogether.
We are now in a formal sense of dictatorship and it's very unpleasant to live under it.
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 EU in growing these gargantuan, completely useless and very damaging and stifling bureaucracies.
So that it can have World domination.
Can you imagine the right to levy a taxation on the whole globe?
This is going to give enormous power and wealth to the centre.
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 the climate conferences are every year.
The negotiators all go to some place where there are plenty of grass skirts 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 centre.
It's never the other way.
And the same now with the Rio Plus 20 conference.
One of the things they haven't yet written 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'll bet you any amount of money you like, you won't find it in the draft now.
But I'll bet you that that will be proposed.
It's already been planned, I'm quite sure.
And they will then say we must have annual conferences on sustainable development.
And each of those annual conferences will have to have that same 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.
Now, so you already underscored the eugenics behind all this, that they want to reduce the world population almost all the way, 90 plus percent basically.
They want to take six-sevenths of it away.
But this is getting quite deadly, these agreements.
Of course we remember Copenhagen, it was rejected by the developing world because they realized how much this is going to 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.
This has happened in Uganda, it's happened in Honduras, heaven knows how many other places it's happened because Our news media are not very good at covering countries where it's uncomfortable and there are no five-star hotels and minibars.
They don't like to go to places like Honduras or Uganda because 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 biofuels.
And they took millions of acres of agricultural land out of... That's totally genocidal.
...growing food for people who need it and growing biofuels 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 that 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.
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 biofuels 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, though it was many tens of millions of acres of agricultural land, that would be enough to trigger a huge increase in the price of the raw commodities that are produced by farming.
And so it's, you know, people sometimes naively say, oh, but you know, you'd have had to take out half the agricultural land in order to double the food prices.
No, it doesn't work like that, as you know.
Once you put the pressure on prices, up they go.
And that's what happened.
This meant 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.
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 which is completely wasted, it only costs $8 to save the life of ...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 by a simple existing operation.
And I mentioned this yesterday, and I said there would be a far better use than these $80 billion 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 are 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.
But there's many diseases they know they can address.
And that here I am making stuff up.
This is the line.
They're 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 economically productive, then 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.
Let me ask you this too about the developing world.
We know there's 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 Nations stuff.
Aren't the actual aid packages out of these UN conferences also going to 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?
This is very true.
For many, many decades now, the British government has had a policy that unless you have a population programme, by which they mean a depopulation programme by enforced artificial contraception, or abortional, both, then you cannot receive British aid.
And this is not really known about in Parliament, if it knew about it, even nowadays, I fear they wouldn't do anything about it, but that's what the bureaucrats do.
They say, unless you have a depopulation programme, 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-humanness of this 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 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 all 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.
Racialistic, in the worst sense.
Oh, absolutely.
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.
Lord Monckton, we want to make sure we're fighting back against these conferences.
Tell us one more time when Rio's coming up in the next climate conference.
Tell us your website and where we can find your statements and ways to fight back.
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 homepage.
And for another climate website, whatsupwiththat.com, W-A-T-T-S, whatsupwiththat.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 and 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.
There'll be three days, roughly speaking, the 19th to the 21st of June.
It's the culmination of a couple of weeks of messing about.
I'll be going just for the last three days, so that we have a presence there and can put the other side.
And I am an accredited delegate to the conference, so I will be able to get in, and I will be able to speak to the other delegates.
They will hate it, but I don't think they'll dare try to exclude me on flimsy grounds a second time.
I think they've learnt.
The lesson of not doing that, because it got all over the newspapers worldwide that they'd tried this on because they feared what I would do.
They were right to fear it.
When I reported the loopy things they'd 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, as it is now, to 200 parts per million by volume in the atmosphere, halving 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 negotiation documents into two.
One half of it continued to be negotiated, 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 of it is loopy.
And so when I published this on What's Up With That, this summary of what was in this document at Durban, that was the most popular of the 500,000 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 round 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 they had to cut the document in two.
Same thing happened at Copenhagen, where I revealed the world government 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 of 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 that 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're 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.
Basically just Emperor wears no clothes.
They'd be loony crazy people if they weren't so draconian.
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 of 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 round saying, some of them, that they want to wipe out six humans in seven, you're regarded as some sort of extremist lunatic.
But that is what these people are saying, some of them.
That's 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.
It might be fringe if they weren't the chosen spokespeople of various elite factions.
I can give you a nice example which I mentioned earlier today on the Alex Jones Show.
James Hansen of NASA.
said several years ago that anyone who dared 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 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 was really saying is that people like me should be killed.
And so I said, this is extreme.
I complained, actually, to the Inspector General of NASA, who did absolutely nothing about it.
Because NASA has now been retasked under the stimulus package as a climate change monitoring agency, 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 this suggestion a few years ago about let's put the likes of Monckton on trial for crimes against humanity because they dare 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, you know, that is loopy.
Of course it's loopy.
It's wildly extreme.
It's the kind of thing the Nazis did.
Oh, I kid you not, there was a Norwegian professor the other day who said he wants 500,000, democracy is 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.
That is the point, and of course Hitler was one of the first environmentalists, the whole Volksmovement 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, who 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 scepticism to be a crime against humanity.
And you see, when they start saying it 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 well of course it's perfectly alright to kill climate sceptics, they're 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 that 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 give 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 kooks who would declare it a crime against humanity to dare to raise legitimate scientific doubts about the climate story.
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 storyline must change.
They said that in 2008.
Here we are four years later.
We've now had 15 years on any measure, and perhaps 20 on some measures, without any global warming at all.
And the NOAA's words must now be remembered.
The climate storyline 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's 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 favour of the sceptical point of view, Hanson began it.
Penn State University have continued it.
Those who dare to make the points like those 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 these 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.
I mean, 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?
As you know, they don't care if it cools, if it warms.
That's an absolute value pretext for their absolute control model.
Well, that's very nicely put.
Yes, I like that.
That's a neat turn of phrase.
I congratulate you on that.
An absolute value pretext for absolute rule.
That is it.
They're trying to say that any change is wrong.
And of course, then if it stopped changing, they'd say, well, this climate stasis is unnatural too.
You know, 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, you know, why didn't I accept that I had got everything wrong, because various propaganda websites had said I'd got everything wrong.
And I thought, I don't do propaganda.
I'm just looking at this thing as a layman.
Admittedly, I'm not a scientist.
I do my best.
I'm a reasonably competent mathematician, so 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.
Indeed I met hundreds of them at the Heartland Conference just yesterday.
So the idea that anyone who dares to raise scientific doubt about a question where the data have now established that it's we who are right and they who are wrong and their only way of dealing with this is to 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're 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, for which the penalty is not death.
It is permanent exclusion from any academic post.
I think they need to investigate too, from what I recall.
Oh, they might well do.
You might recall that there's a man, though, whose 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 hundred years have been warmer than any previous time in the last 1,300 years.
That was the storyline.
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.
Well, of course it isn't.
Aristotle knew that 2,300 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 thousand years is that the medieval warm period was real.
...was global and was warmer than the present.
And my good friend Dr. Craig Idso, I saw him yesterday at this conference, he maintains a database at 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 over 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, eh?
Exactly.
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.
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.
Same to you.
Thank you, sir.
Good night.
And don't forget, you too can fight back in the battle.
We've just launched PlanetInfoWars.com.
You can post your own blogs, break down your own analysis, send it out to your own friends and contact, and fight this info war in your own way while joining us in Legion here at InfoWars.com.
Don't forget to support us too at PrisonPlanet.tv.
I'm Aaron Dykes.
▲
Export Selection