The
sight of any U.S. president literally bowing to British royalty
is enough for many Americans to become outraged. However, the
fact that the latest to do so is America's first black president
made yesterday's exchange between Obama and the Queen of England
even more troublesome.
Prior to meeting the Queen and her notoriously
racist husband, Prince Philip, Obama
announced that he "loves" her and that
"in the imagination of people throughout America"
the queen stands for "decency" and "civility".
How repugnantly ironic that the first black president
of the so called "free world" should refer to the
most entrenched prejudiced and elitist institution in Europe
as an icon of "civility"!
How disgustingly deplorable that the president
should call "decent" a bloodline that has for centuries
declared itself as God's appointed rulers over half of the planet,
killing, torturing and maiming anyone who crosses it in order
to hold on to that mantle.
Traditional royal protocol dictates that men do
a neck bow and women do a slight curtsy — though a handshake
is considered acceptable as long as the queen offers her hand
first, Politco reported.
When the President met the Queen in a room used
to stage audiences with foreign dignitaries, Obama bowed his
head and quietly said to her: "Thank you so much for having
us" before turning to the Duke, bowing once more and adding:
"It's a wonderful honour."
Michelle Obama curtsied to the Queen, however,
later on she was treasonously caught inappropriately putting
her hands on the glorious Monarch. The London
Telegraph even issued a report on how the move
was "a departure from what is considered appropriate protocol
when meeting the Queen."
Perhaps the most revealing part of the meeting,
however, came from the mouth of Prince Philip.
Just as I had predicted 30 minutes previously
on the Alex Jones radio show, Philip could not contain his virulent
xenophobia, even in front of the cameras and the press.
In the small talk, the Queen and the Prince asked
the President and his wife about their grueling schedule since
arriving late on Tuesday evening.
“The time lag,” said the Queen
“You’re just trying to stay awake!” said
Philip.
Then the President told the Royals: “I had breakfast
with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the
Russians, David Cameron…
“And I’m proud to say I did not nod off in one
of the meetings.”
A guffawing Prince Philip then blurted out: “Can you
tell the difference between them?”
Apparently Barack Obama replied that he had no trouble telling
them apart.
Then Philip, with a wave of his hand, directed
the Obamas to turn around for the camera, to which the president
nervously replied "of course".
The Obamas and the Queen managed an astonishing
set of uncomfortable false smiles, while Philip didn't even
bother attempting it.
The foursome then joined other world leaders in
sipping champagne and devouring canapés, including mini
Cornish pasties, smoked quails' eggs, foie gras and rolls of
duck filled with melon.
Watch video of the cringe inducing exchange:
Prince Philip has made so many racist remarks
in public, that they literally
fill an entire book.
In 1984 he asked a Kenyan woman "You are
a woman, aren't you?".
In 1986 he told British students in China ''If
you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.''
In 1998, during a tour of Papua New Guinea, he
told another British student, ''You managed not to get eaten
then?''
While on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw
a poorly wired fuse box. “It looks as though it was put
in by an Indian,” he remarked.
During a small town visit in Scotland, in a brief conversation
with a driving instructor, he asked, “How do you keep
the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the
(road) test?”
In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine,
“Still throwing spears?”
Also, he once told a group of deaf children standing near a
Jamaican steel drum musician, “Deaf? If you are near there,
no wonder you are deaf.”
The list goes on and on. While the media often laugh the remarks
off as "gaffes", they take on a more serious nature
when Philip's background and the organizations he is involved
with are more carefully examined.
It is well
documented that Prince Philip's sister, Sophia,
was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who
named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler's honour. Indeed,
all four of Philip's sisters married high-ranking Nazis. The
prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending
his 1947 wedding to the future Queen of England meant he was
allowed to invite only two guests.
Two years ago, more
revelations of Philip's Nazi links emerged in a
book that featured never before published photographs of Philip
aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked
by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.
Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia,
sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Goering.
Philip was forced to concede that his family found Hitler's
attempts to restore Germany's power and prestige 'attractive'
and admitted they had 'inhibitions about the Jews'.
Philip also helped
start the World Wildlife Fund with former Nazi
SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely
affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg international
power group.
In the past, Philip has also attended the ultra
secretive ritualistic meeting of elites at Bohemian Grove, where
he "stole the show" with an "amusing but salty
speech" in 1962, according to the Grove's own literature
(pictured below).
Philip was also trained in the Hilter Youth. His
belief in Nazi ideology is clear when one looks at what
he has said on the subject of overpopulation.
In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an
Animal, Prince
Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated,
I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute
something to solve overpopulation."
Borrowing the idea from American scientists who
pioneered the field in the 1930's, the Nazis advanced the pseudo-science
of eugenics and incorporated it into Adolf Hitler's dream of
the Aryan super-race. Bearing in mind Philip's Nazi connections,
his views on the subject of overpopulation are unsurprising,
but shocking nonetheless.
Just last year he reiterated these views, announcing
that there are too many people in the world, and attacking
large families in a television interview, despite
the fact that Prince Philip himself has four children and eight
grandchildren.
His son, Charles, the next King of England, has
continued such ideology as he tours the world in private jets
lecturing about the impact of climate change and how too many
people are killing the planet.
The royals' zeal to thin the population of undesirables
has little to do with so-called "green credentials,"
as is fatuously argued by the corporate media.
Skip to the bottom of this article for a vast
selection of similar quotations from Philip, all advocating
culling the "surplus" human population.
(Article continues below)
Racism within the Royal family is not restricted to Prince Philip,
however.
In early 2005 Philip's grandson, Prince Harry,
was forced to publicly apologise for donning
full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German
Wehrmacht and a swastika armband.
Pictures of Harry wearing the uniform were taken
at a friend's birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the fancy
dress theme "colonial and native".
Last year Harry was once again forced to issue
an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our
little Paki friend” and joking with another
that he "looks like a raghead", an offensive term
for an Arab.
In 2004 a rather disgusting story emerged in the
U.S. media regarding Princess Michael of Kent, who is the wife
of Queen Elizabeth's first cousin. Princess Michael's father,
Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was also exposed in the 1980s as
a former Nazi party member and SS officer.
The Princess reportedly turned to a table of black
New Yorkers in a busy restaurant and chided them for being noisy,
adding "You need to go back to the colonies."
When asked to explain her comments by one of the
diners the Princess reportedly said "I didn't say go back
to the colonies, I said, Remember the colonies," adding
that "In the days of the colonies there were rules that
were very good."
Just think about it. A German-born British aristocrat
-- whose father was in the Nazi SS -- in the United States telling
African Americans who have been here for centuries to "remember
the colonies"? The
LA Times noted.
The late Queen mother was also said to be virulently
racist by close aids, last year Edward Stourton, the presenter
of the BBC’s flagship radio program Today, described her
as “a
ghastly old bigot”.
According
to others, the Queen mother referred to black people
as “nig-nogs” or “blackamoors”, opposed
all forms of immigration, and thought black Africans incapable
of running their own countries. She backed white minority rule
in Rhodesia and lamented that former apartheid leader P.W. Botha
got bad press.
The Queen mother also criticised Lord Mountbatten, viceroy
of India, “for giving away the empire” and his wife
because “her mother was half-Jewish”.
Despite all of this the media consistently referred to her
the as “nation's favourite granny”.
But it gets worse...
Before the war began the Queen Mother was a supporter of making
concessions to Hitler and the Nazis, a feeling shared by a large
number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was
dealing with the Communists.
For some 50 years royal documents were held in vaults at Windsor
Castle that detailed the abdicated king Edward
VIII's relations with Hitler and the Nazis. They
included captured German documents describing the Windsors'
meeting with Hitler in 1937 and plans to restore Edward, the
Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war. Some
of these documents still remain hidden from the public.
While many have described the Edward VIII and his wife as known
sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, relatives
of Wallis Simpson, the American woman whom Edward had an affair
with, and the reason for his abdication, have suggested that
in fact Edward was excommunicated by the rest of the royal family
because he wasn't friendly enough with the Nazis.
Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, George V and George VI
were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland.
The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria
married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The
House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards
all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria's
grandson King George V - an honorary Field Marshal in the German
army - thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles
and adopt that of Windsor, the name of a small town in the home
counties of England.
Today many people in Britain suggest that all these facts are
no long relevant because the royal family has very little power.
This is a huge myth. The Queen is the head of state and as such
she can simply replace the British government at any time she
chooses, should she wish to do so. The royal family still owns
vast swathes of land throughout Britain and the rest of the
world, and the Queen still presides as head of state in Canada
and Australia.
******
Prince Philip, In
His Own Words: We Need To 'Cull' The Surplus Population
Here is a re-cap
of some of the things "HIS ROYAL VIRUS", Prince Philip
has said in public concerning "culling the population"
Reported by Deutsche Press
Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return
as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve
overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I
Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an
animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it
was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward
the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere
to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation
as a particularly deadly virus.
Press conference at the National Press
Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for
Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion
and Ecology, May 18, 1990.
It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called
pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians,
and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic
in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic
philosophies of the revealed religions.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from
the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed
to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved
its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed
three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide
three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land
for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little
wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has
suffered. The fact [is] ... that the best-intentioned aid programs
are at least partially responsible for the problems.
Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.
I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust the ``cull''
to the size of the surplus population.
Lecture to the European Council of International
Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.
The great difficulty about ``life'' is that we humans are part
of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively....
It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention
to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this
planet with us.
...|When the Bible says that man shall have ``dominion'' over
God's creation, the choice is between understanding dominion
as in ``having power over,'' or dominion as ``having responsibility
for.''
"Conflict Between Instinct and Reason"
Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton
University, Nov. 24, 1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical
stage in man's affairs, largely because the explosion of facts
has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same
time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies.
The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind's physical
and intellectual environment and when any environment changes,
the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. ``Adapt
or die'' is as true today as it was in the beginning.
Introduction to ``Exploitation of the
Natural System'' section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip,
Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth
to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors
knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial
and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole
of the world's natural system. It has been estimated that by
the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will
have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which
all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.
The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best
possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed,
human life must be preserved and human existence must be made
safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly
desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival
of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation
on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.
Address to Edinburgh University Union,
Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a
more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated.
The more people there are, the more industry and more waste
and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.
The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment,
it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will
become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The
situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands
cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved
so far.
I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and
I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about
the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness;
but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed
and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment
is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the
challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.
Introduction to ``The Population Factor''
section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
1988.
What has been described as the ``balance of nature'' is simply
nature's system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success
create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the
losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation--and
in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars
and terrorism--are the principal means by which population numbers
are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world's
human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening
its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the
extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species.
Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared,
as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human
activities.
Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke
of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds
Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.''
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious
long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster
if it isn't curbed--not just for the natural world, but for
the human world. The more people there are, the more resources
they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more
fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled
voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase
in disease, starvation and war.
Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population
and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in
London, March 11, 1987.
I do believe ... that human population pressure--the sheer
number of people on this planet--is the single most important
cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the
progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals,
and of the destabilization of the world's climatic and atmospheric
systems.
The simple fact is that the human population of the world is
consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate,
and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage.
If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion,
I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population
reaches six and then 10 billion.... All this has been made possible
by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and
it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of
development.
Address at the Salford University Degree
Ceremony, July 16, 1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle
there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing
indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for
ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked,
is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.
Address to All-Party Conservation Committee
in London, Feb. 18, 1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to
conservation has been the development of human contraception
techniques.
The survival of the "most important"
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke
of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing
Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?
A: Yes, but you can't legislate these problems away. You've
got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important
people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it
because they're at the receiving end. They've got to accept
the measures.
The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University,
June 4, 1982.
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the
factors limiting the increase in any population are removed.
One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are
capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be
sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase
at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his
theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction
is that as each individual is slightly different to all the
others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals
which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances
have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take
a look at the figures for the human population of this world.
One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million
or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a
100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the
third billion and 15 years to reach today's total of 4.4 billion.
With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total
population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated
6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people
will be added to the world population each year. In fact it
could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the
demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm
land available and the destruction of half of the present area
of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant
reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility
of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people
consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring
resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries
can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive
increase in the world population.
Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust
Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control methods] ... remained taboo
subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population
explosion were that much more remote.
In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all
animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that
virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss
of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring
more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more
food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely
by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains
of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food
and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in
the rate of increase in the human population.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from
the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution
and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical
care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was
a population explosion which still continues today.
The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people
being very much better off, more than twice as many people are
just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this
well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster
of immense proportions.
The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University,
June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to ``conserve'' the system as a whole;
not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who
are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that
all species are prey to some other species. They accept that
most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled
without in any way threatening the survival of the species as
a whole.
A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip,
Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes' time
have believed in and advocated the control of society by ``philosopher
kings.'' According to Plato, ``its kings must be those who have
shown the greatest ability in philosophy,'' but--realistically--he
added, ``and the greatest aptitude for war.'' Such people may
exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary
qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it
is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such
processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers
and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.
The
sight of any U.S. president literally bowing to British royalty
is enough for many Americans to become outraged. However, the
fact that the latest to do so is America's first black president
made yesterday's exchange between Obama and the Queen of England
even more troublesome.
It is 
Racism within the Royal family is not restricted to Prince Philip,
however.