H/T Tony for this audio interview of Christopher Monckton by James Delingpole. I’ve roughly transcribed bits of it where Monckton was talking:
“It’s a dangerous time. I’ve been looking quite closely at the pre-Nazi period in Germany. I have a lot of papers to do with it which aren’t public, because my grandfather was minister if information during the early years of the war… And so he had a lot of papers on this, and was very interested in how the Nazis had managed to get control. And they had followed a pattern that is discernible in their documents. The first thing they did was to go round saying there was only one acceptable point of view. That was where Political Correctness really first was invented, as you were not allowed to have a point of view other than that of the Nazi Party. Even though they were hardly represented in the Reichstag at all, they were beginning to shout down anyone who disagreed with them, and they would attack the individuals rather than their arguments…. The next stage was they began openly demanding that those who disagreed with them should be arrested, put on trial (or not put on trial, they didn’t much care) and then either imprisoned or executed… for disagreeing with the Nazi party on almost anything… I saw a note the other day from somebody who’d listed half a dozens instances of what I call the Climate Communists saying that people like us should be arrested, imprisoned, tried and executed for crimes against the planet, or treason against the planet, or high crimes against humanity. There are various formulations from Jim Hansen upwards… Practically every week somebody is now saying this. And I thought I would just see if we bullied the bullies back, what would happen… The third stage was that they took office, and then they began going round and arresting people and executing them because they took a different view. So I don’t like the fact that we’ve got to stages 1 and 2. And one of the interesting things about pre-Nazi Germany was that because of the savage personal attacks which were directed by the Nazis at anyone who disagreed with them, it eventually got to the point where very few people who disagreed with them would dare to say so. And so it was left to only a tiny handful who dared to put their heads above the parapet. I was talking to a US Congressman the other day, and I said, “Why, since you don’t believe a word of this global warming stuff, why don’t more of your colleagues do what you very occasionally do, and come out and say this is rubbish?” He said, “We’ve all seen what’s happened to your reputation because you dared to speak out… … We’ve watched this happening, and we don’t want it happening to us. That’s why we don’t speak out more often.” That is exactly how it was in Nazi Germany, and I have all the papers on it… And you could see this hate-speech going on all the time against anyone who dared to disagree, and eventually it worked: people just became frightened to say anything. Now that is happening in our legislature to quite a large degree now. People want to get re-elected, and they know that if they come out too openly against the usual suspects, then the Greens will target them – perhaps even at national level – and make it impossible for them to be re-elected… If you broadcast, they’ll try to take your advertising revenue away… This constant attack against the individual doesn’t so much hurt the individual, what it does do is frighten off anybody else from doing the same, and this comes over and over again in the pre-war papers of what was going on in Nazi Germany.”
No mention of the Nazi antismoking parallels.
But I can see what he means about when the Greens fire up a big media assault on somebody. The Greens and ‘progressives’ more or less own the mainstream media. And Monckton knows what it’s like to be pilloried by them.
But does it really matter if the mainstream media crucify you? The media are really just a highly vocal minority. The people who really count are the broad mass of voters. And this particular voter has a high opinion of people like Monckton (and Delingpole), and it’s next to the names of people like them that I’m going to mark my cross. I’ll vote for anyone who comes out against smoking bans, global warming, and EU tyranny – regardless of what the media throw at them.
And I suspect a lot of other people feel the same. After all, the media set out to crucify Nigel Farage and UKIP at the EU election earlier this year – and UKIP went and won the election. So much for the power of the media.
“I was invited to California to give an address – a lecture – to a group of Zionist Jews on the parallels between the pre-Nazi period on which I often lecture and what is happening in the climate debate today. They’d seen these parallels. So I read up Mein Kampf and found bits there where Hitler was making … similar remarks: “It is the business of the people to defer to authority. It is not the job of parliament to vote on things. They are there to carry out in the most efficient way the wishes of the leadership.” And one of the Australian professors… had been saying similar things. He’d been saying “If you are not a climate scientist, it is your duty to defer to the authority of those who are.”…”
I seems that some people are just control freaks. The EU was designed by control freaks for control freaks. They don’t like representative government. Its leadership is a bunch of unelected control freaks in the EU Commission. And the only job of the EU parliament is to rubberstamp the Commission’s proposals, not make any of their own.
And Hitler was a control freak too. He took more and more of the decisions. And many of his decisions were the wrong ones. Which is what’s bound to happen when there’s no real debate to place all the options on the table and carefully weigh them up, and the decisions are instead the whim of a single uneducated man.
I’ve been reading about Tsar Nicholas II of Russia in WW1. Like Hitler, he took over personal command of the Russian army from his generals. And like Hitler, it was a disaster.
The only good thing about leaders is that in a crisis they can make quick decisions in ways that slow democratic consultative processes can’t. But it doesn’t help much if the quick decisions are the wrong ones.
“What is interesting is that the silent majority – that both sides always claim [as their own] – I think is genuinely with us. I think they are beginning to notice the frenetic hate-filled speech of the other side, and the constant attempts to silence debate. People can kind of feel that that’s not right. And so I think that very largely the other side are now helping us…”
I probably don’t count as one of “the silent majority”, but I think he’s probably right. Or at least I hope he is.
On the fear that we may end up under a new Nazi tyranny:
“No, I’m sure we won’t do that, because there are those of us who will make an awful lot of noise before they got away with that. And that is the difference between how it was then, and how it is now. At that time people didn’t realise that it was dangerous NOT to speak out.”
I hope he’s right about that. But I read today that in the UK 660 people have been arrested as suspected paedophiles. Where do you keep 660 people? Sounds to me like you need to have some sort of camp to hold numbers like that. A camp with, say, a barbed wire perimeter fence and watch towers and long low huts. And in Britain today, who isn’t a suspected paedophile? What if next they say that 66,000 people have been detained as suspected paedophiles? It seems to be heading in that sort of direction.