It’s understandably difficult to choose sides in the ongoing debate over keeping the constitutional monarchy or moving to a republic. On the one hand you have a royal family full of environmental fanatics who seem to enjoy promoting genocide; on the other hand you have the leftist intellectual elite in Australia, sitting on their taxpayer-funded thrones in our universities and our bloated bureaucracy, hell-bent on destroying any official symbol or reference that reminds us that we are a western nation and that most of our ancestors came here from Europe (and more specifically, the United Kingdom).
Given the obsession of the royal family, particularly Prince Charles and Prince Phillip, with the cult of environmentalism, it may seem odd that the leftists in this country have a problem with a constitutional connection to the British monarchy. After all, if Prince Charles did become King and decide to intervene in Australian politics, it is difficult to envision that he would ever act out of line with the leftist agenda. Why? Because the leftist agenda and the mindset of an oligarch like Prince Charles are in essence completely the same. Communism and the eco-feudal monarchy that Prince Charles professes both represent absolute governmental control over the lives of individuals. Both ideologies reject economic and civil liberties and both reject prosperity, technological progress and increasing standards of living. Both are totalitarian and therefore must be opposed.
If you think you have, in the current crop of royals, an enlightened and intelligent bunch of which to be proud, perhaps you haven’t been paying close enough attention. In a 1986 television interview Prince Charles made what is (arguably) his most insane and derided comment in public life. Speaking about his eco-obsessions he claimed “I talk to the plants”. And as if that were not insane enough, he continued on: “It’s very important to talk to them, they respond.” So not only does Prince Charles talk to the shrubs, but they talk back at him.
Whilst Prince Charles’ conversations with shrubbery may seem like the harmless ramblings of a simple madman, his father, Prince Phillip’s comments are more explicitly disturbing. In a foreword to a 1986 book by Fleur Cowles called ‘If I Were an Animal’, Prince Phillip made the following disturbing comment: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Prince Phillip has made numerous comments along the same line. He has also denigrated Christianity saying he favours the backward pagan religions which are “more realistic in terms of conservation ethics”. In other words, Christianity is bad because it has accompanied liberty and prosperity in Europe and it has made people like him accountable to something higher. Pagan religions, on the other hand, have been accompanied by low livings standards, feudal oligarchy and obsessions with ecology, music to the ears of the elite.
Prince Charles and Prince Phillip are also known for their intense hatred of technology. In 2008 Charles made a speech where he stated “We live in an age when technological ease has become so much a part of the accustomed way of life that it seems natural to some and even their right, but what does our comprehensive dependence on such technology do to our connection with nature and its patterns?” Over the years he has persistently expressed his hatred of anything modern, particularly modern agriculture with its capacity for cheaper and more abundant food production, as well as modern architecture. His father spouts similar rhetoric and has even bemoaned the complexity of television remote controls.
Obsessions with overpopulation, ecology and hatred of technology and progress are characteristics common to all elites, both leftists and royals. They are ideologies cut from the same totalitarian cloth. In order to rule, the oligarch requires a manageable population, hence the population can’t be too large, too prosperous or too independent. Technology and innovation to increase living standards have served to liberate the common man, which is not in the interest of someone like Prince Charles. Obsessions with the so-called virtue of ‘natural order’ allows elites to justify their own existence because in the wild, the strong survive and the weak die. Whether that situation is just, is not considered. Elites scorn at the idea that the common man can better his condition through his own efforts and his love and compassion for his fellow man. They scorn that he might move beyond what may appear on the surface to be the ‘natural order’, for if nature is inevitably cruel and hierarchical, then the royals are not unjust, but merely a manifestation of it.
But it is not beyond a British monarch to do some good for the people. There have been some points in history where the British monarchy has been a force for at least relative good. To quote a particular documentary on the lead up to the American Revolution:
“In a time when the French King regards himself as the direct representative of god on earth, when the Spanish King can tax his subjects without limit and Catherine the great of Russia deals with political opponents by cutting of their heads and displaying them at the end of a stake, the British King stands alone. (Directly quoting King George III) The pride, the glory of Britain, the direct end of its constitution, is political liberty.”
Of course, the irony of this statement is that he would later wage a vicious war to keep the American colonies in the empire, however the point still applies. Official symbols and references to the Crown and to the United Kingdom are also important to indirectly highlight and remind people that the tradition in which this nation exists is firmly in western civilisation and we should not be denigrating the achievements of that civilisation. The principles of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the idea of political, economic and civil liberty, unique to western culture, ought to be romanticised in the education of our children and our citizens, however they are nothing but demonised in an overwhelming contextual cesspool of eco-fanaticism and multiculturalism.
Prince Charles has predictably stated that he opposes the principles of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, basically suggesting that human freedom and human progress is affront to his beloved ‘natural order’. He does not deserve to be the King of Australia.
But how do we keep alive our very important links with the United Kingdom and deal with the problem of Charles and his lunatic family? Well it’s quite simple, we get new monarchs. But is there anyone in the peerage that is worthy? Well yes. In fact he toured Australia earlier this year where he gave many eloquent and convincing speeches and media interviews. No! I’m not talking about Prince William, a chip off the old block, I’m talking about Lord Christopher Monkton. To those who suggest that appointing Lord Monckton King of Australia is a crazy idea. Well let me put it this way, would you prefer an intelligent and eloquent King who vehemently defends liberty? Or would you prefer a feudal Luddite who chats with his pot plants?
