Royal Embodiment of Opposing Cults is a Dilemma for Commonwealth Commentariat
In the person of Prince Charles resides for activists the opposing poles of their group ideology. He towers over the climate movement. He is the beacon of inherited white privilege. Prince Charles actively took up the umbrella cause of climate long before most progressives realised that it was even a cause in the first place.
This conflict becomes visually evident in public television. Here the words “climate change” are rendered with a look of pious pleading. A few segments later Prince Charles’ name pops up and is accompanied by a look of “does he matter anymore?”
The activist commentariat has a split focus between reverence for the climate cult and a cultivated disdain for the individual who has done most to cause it to happen, Prince Charles.
There is the belief that Charles does not wish to be king. Wrong. He has always been utterly straightforward in letting it be known that he expects to shoulder the Crown, and wants to do so.
Sheltering collectively under the all-embracing climate cult the anti white privilege modernists are painfully coming to terms with the fact that their standard-bearer is the heir apparent and who dived more completely into their climate movement than most of them still dare to do.
Nobody personifies this contradiction more than former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.
He built his power base on republicanism, condemned the monarchy. Then he sought to cement himself into office through climatism. He now seeks to maintain both ideologies concurrently.
One ideology sustains climate as the umbrella cause of our times. The other, the twinned monarchy white privilege consciousness movement, seeks to cancel Prince Charles who more than any other living person has by example led the climate crusade.
The contradiction is that the man who will be king, the heir apparent Prince Charles,(pictured above with Davos associate) embodies Climate.
Climate is the overarching doctrine of the contemporary modernity movement which simultaneously seeks to eliminate Charles and everything he stands for which means….wait for it….Climatism.
Climate is the underpinning of the New Zealand political doctrine, even surpassing the diversity one.
In the event anti monarchism cum anti white privilege clashes with the diversity push symbolised by the constantly iterated emphasis on Maori rights.
Maori rights are enshrined by the Treaty of Waitangi, an historic agreement between Maori chiefs and the British Crown. No Crown. No Treaty.
The ideological production process line for this jarring contradiction is an extended geographical one.
The progressive ideology is itself esoteric and originates in the West and East coastal enclaves of the United States and then migrates across the Atlantic.
In its various transmitted belief forms it makes landfall at the Guardian. Here the raw content is re-packaged into softer quizzical ideological versions crafted for Commonwealth consumption.
The BBC picks it up and in doing so gives it the imprimatur of the received wisdom, the ideological equivalent of the Stamp of Good Housekeeping.
It now gets swiftly relayed to other Commonwealth government broadcasters in Australia and also New Zealand where presenters for example are encouraged to give the nation their own favoured replacement name which is Aotearoa.
Back now to Prince Charles, the great Re-setter in Chief and who discovered climate long before it became an emergency or even a crisis.
This princely ecologist was a victim of a real emergency-crisis and one that could have led to his own extinction. He became infected with Covid-19.
White privilege was not enough to protect the Prince. Now himself a bona fide victim in a victim culture did the Prince of Wales whine or even mention this ill-fortune?
He did not, simply using his plight as a springboard for advocating a natural alternative approach to diseases. Yoga he proclaimed was an ideal recovery path for Covid victims.
The cultural elites which now guide public broadcasting do so through propagating the belief that they were there first as an ecological conscience. Actually Charles was, pumping out simultaneously the heritage message along with the natural cures one too.
Redeemers such as Malcolm Turnbull and his cohorts of co-believers to whom climate means colonising the popular conscience are now themselves Guardians of a covert question.
It is this. Does Prince Charles the pioneer climatist cancel out the other Prince Charles, the one of inherited white privilege?
In the bracketed yet seemingly irreconcilable twin cultures of climate and white privilege HRH is both foe and friend to the progressives and thus for them cancels himself out.
Vanity Fair, The Spectator, L’Express cover New Zealand pandemic initiative shunned by local politico-media class.
A scientific collective with roots in New Zealand and which anticipated the official whitewashing of the origins of the Covid-19 virus is being deliberately ignored by the politico-media establishment here.
The purpose of this scientific collaboration is described by one of its participants Paris-based geneticist Virginie Courtier as being straightforward. “There are unanswered questions,” she says “and a few human beings know the answer.”
Point man for the world-wide multidisciplinary movement is Auckland-based Gilles Demaneuf (pictured). He is co-founder of DRASTIC. The group came into existence when it became clear that existing authorities charged with identifying the origins of the virus were inadequate to do so because of undisclosed conflicts of interest.
This became evident to the group after the now widely recognised attempt by The Lancet medical journal to close down any debate centred on the possibility of a laboratory leak for the virus.
“Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone,” was Mr Demaneuf’s reaction to The Lancet, according to Vanity Fair.
It was now that there came into existence Decentralised Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid -19. DRASTIC for short and which now began cataloguing all the relevant research laboratories in China.
As they posted their findings they were joined snowball-like by other scientists with the common purpose of investigating any connection between the pandemic virus and research laboratories in China.
The group now dug for example into why a vaccine was being developed for Covid 19 before there was in fact a Covid-19 virus.
Then there came the discovery that a central research database was rendered inactive just weeks before the world at large was confronted by Covid -19.
DRASTIC began charting the three dimensional structure of the Chinese research laboratories identifying for example plumbing reticulation. It evaluates building materials orders.
Similarly the group seeks to identify all laboratory exception report incidents such as accidents, hospitalisations, and equipment malfunctions. Also telecommunications logs. Who was calling who, and when?
Another conundrum. Why was so much of the Chinese exported personal protection equipment found to be so shoddy?
Normally an international scientific collective such as DRASTIC would have been the subject of considerable local media interest. Pickup would usually be assured because the scientific collective has also been widely covered in France and Australia among other countries
In The Spectator Mr Demaneuf is recorded as claiming that “Unless we fully understand what happened in Wuhan, another virus could bring the word to a halt….and the next one may be more virulent and much more deadly.”
DRASTIC has been substantially covered by Vanity Fair. The United States magazine observed “If the lab-leak explanation proves accurate, history may credit Demaneuf and his fellow doubters for breaking the dam…..
“They are now knee-deep in examining the Wuhan Institute of Virology construction orders, sewage output, and cell phone traffic.”
Concluded Vanity Fair of Mr Demaneuf and a DRASTIC colleague: “Now, at least, there appears to be the prospect of a level inquiry—the kind Gilles Demaneuf and Jamie Metzl had wanted from the start…..”
Occam’s Razor tells us that the obvious explanation is the probable one. This is that the media has always had a problem with scientific topics and their dissection.
Another reason is that Covid is not merely a health or “wellness” threat. It is also a distraction from the in-place politico media priority focus which remains fixed on climate warming as the unifying progressive preoccupation.
In the meantime and in the words of Vanity Fair’s extended DRASTIC coverage “Since December 1, 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 has infected more than 170 million people around the world and killed more than 3.5 million. To this day, we don’t know how or why this novel coronavirus suddenly appeared in the human population.”
Gilles Demaneuf views his task according to a foreign language medical publication as surmounting the “Chinese Wall” of vested interests that encircles the origin of the virus.
What made the Labour coalition government at the very last moment suddenly veer away at the last exit junction?
Negotiations for New Zealand to sign up with China’s Belt & Road Initiative continued until the evidence became overwhelming that China was the source of the Covid-19 virus.
The Labour-led coalition held off a final commitment to Belt and Road and in doing so the nation was saved from the scale of outbreaks that afflicted the main gateways of Italy and the State of Victoria which had already enrolled in the Belt & Road Initiative
China pushed hard for New Zealand to embark on its new era commercial super highway. But government members and officials kept talking instead of taking decisions.
This was in contrast to the Belt & Road earlier adopters such as Italy and the state of Victoria whose main commercial gateways Milan and Melbourne were swamped with the virus due to personnel shuttling back and forth paving the way for the trade strategy.
Who or what against the prevailing political sentiment of the time erected the barrier against taking the Belt and Road Initiative?
The last moment decision to swerve away from taking Belt and Road saved New Zealand from following Italy and Australia which both drove full throttle onto the China trade freeway and as a consequence became prone to the worst effects of the plague.
The Australia participation was in the state of Victoria and centred on Melbourne which became severely contaminated by Covid 19 and which still remains vulnerable to outbreaks.
The Italian terminus of Belt and Road corridor was centred on Milan which became an early victim in Europe of the virus.
It was only much later into the pandemic that the Federal Government eventually perceiving the actual threat stepped in and cancelled Victoria’s state-grade Belt and Road deal with China
Timing is important here. The Victoria state Belt and Road started in October 2018. The Italian Belt and Road in March 2019.
Who was responsible in New Zealand for protracting the deal? Did an alert member of the New Zealand Embassy in Beijing warn that this was not the time to inaugurate a trade agreement that involved substantial people movements?
Did a health attaché perhaps convey the warning that conventional shared and trusted international channels were inadequate to report the outbreak, let alone its severity?
The New Zealand Belt and Road map formula at the time was to participate in the deal by offering to China on top of the usual bill of fare carefully defined sectors of agribusiness expertise.
Discussions on what to put in the New Zealand Belt & Road shop window were only suspended when the extent of the Covid 19 contagion became evident.
This pause in enrolment proceedings meant that Auckland never became the portal for the plague as did Melbourne the focus of the state of Victoria activity and Milan of Italy’s.
The known facts are that China was keen for New Zealand to enrol in Belt & Road, very keen as the nation would have become an important reference site for the rest of the South Pacific to take its lead from.
What made the Labour coalition government at the very last moment suddenly sheer away on the last exit junction before it actually hit the China Belt and Road?
Winston Peters of the Labour-Green-New Zealand First governing coalition cabinet in which he became deputy prime minister now adds to the mystery.
He is the most obvious candidate for recognising the full slate of seen and unseen perils attendant upon Belt and Road. His constant misgivings about China and his championing of Taiwan single him out as a candidate for pulling on a handbrake.
One other thing is known. It is that this entire topic, a close run thing by any standard, has become taboo and shrouded in self-censorship in the very places that it should be discussed.
Why did Mr Peters during the Covid Election toward the end of 2020 fail to stress any role he had in any stalling on Belt & Road, and thus in preventing the contagion that overran Melbourne and Milan?
Did he in fact do so but nobody wanted to acknowledge what he was saying?
China in just recent weeks has culturally appropriated the most potent page in the political playbook, the victim one, and it is calculated most of all to appeal to the Labour government.
There is a timetable and questions must now be asked about it. The CCP is determined that for New Zealand Belt and Road will not encounter an Oceania cul-de-sac, a dead end.