Goldsmith Dynasty caused Carrie Johnson to emulate NZ climate Best in Show ambition for UK
Boris Johnson’s sudden conversion to climate extremism followed his marriage to his wife Carrie whose first job was working for Zac Goldsmith, now Lord Goldsmith.
Zac Goldsmith with his uncle the late Edward “Teddy” Goldsmith was instrumental in starting New Zealand’s Pacific Ecologist magazine.
The late Teddy Goldsmith, married to a New Zealander, donated to the nation’s Green Party and became an activist in a number of green causes there.
Zac Goldsmith was his uncle’s right hand man in starting and sustaining the Ecologist magazine franchise. He went on to become a British Member of Parliament and it was in this capacity that he gave Carrie Symonds her first job.
The Goldsmiths were among the first to see New Zealand in an international context as the nation that more than any other pointed the way to an idealised ultimate eco country, now often described as the Best in Show syndrome.
The Johnson premiership is now recognised as being conducted under the United States presidential model with Carrie Johnson acting as First Lady in a Clintonesque co-presidency.
It is in this process that Boris Johnson swung to extreme climatism following the New Zealand model in which conformity to global climate desiderata overrules all other considerations, notably economic ones.
Zac Goldsmith’s connections with New Zealand were massively restored when as Lord Goldsmith he was made Minister of State with special responsibility for the Pacific.
Boris Johnson’s conversion to the climate cult is the most radical in the developed world because it is so all encompassing seeking for example a 20 percent reduction in meat and dairy consumption in the next eight years.
His climate radicalism is the real cause of disaffection among the Tories, the ones in his parliamentary party and also the rank and file backbone in the shires.
His omnibus scheme for the greening of Britain involves the elimination of coal and gas and petrol cars in the medium term, cutbacks in airports, and shipping and the saturation introduction of devices such as heat pumps.
This follows on the heels of the current New Zealand ban on oil and natural gas exploration, even though natural gas is vital to the nation’s main export of milk products. Domestic coal suppression virtue signalling means in fact relying on increasing volumes of coal imports from nations such as Indonesia.
Carrie Johnson’s eco influence became notable in the priority during the evacuation of Kabul of an entire dogs home complete with staff.
Australasians viewing Mr Johnson’s ascent to power are baffled by someone who on the eve of the crucial general election in 2019 left his “long suffering” wife Marina as the UK press always described her, the mother of four of his children, and then took up with Carrie with whom he has had two additional children.
How could anyone so distracted cope with winning an election and then running a country?
There are several reasons. A by-product of Britain’s class system is that certain people have immense social licence. Such individuals understand that what applies to other people does not apply to them. Mr Johnson is at best merely a theatrically embellished member of the upper class. His faux aristocratic blustering bravura demeanour is an accepted put on.
His jocular manner and aura of fun-to-be-around converted into hard political capital when in his two terms he kept the progressive left out of London’s mayoralty and then in the 2019 general election gave the Tories an 80-seat majority in parliament.
How could this have happened, Australasians ask, when any such domestic upheavals, even the whisper of them, would have disqualified at the outset one of their own prime ministerial candidates?
The reason is Margaret Thatcher. She purged British politics of prurience about the private life of its politicians. It was their ability to do the job that mattered she insisted.
It was this still largely unseen element of Thatcherism that gave Boris Johnson his singular immunity in skating over domestic upheavals that would have sunk his counterparts anywhere else in the Commonwealth.
Mr Johnson’s most obvious ideological counterpart in the Commonwealth remains Malcolm Turnbull, a much longer term yet equally ardent proponent of the progressive extreme climate cause, the overarching cause of causes, having been elected also as leader of a conservative government.
Mr Johnson terrifies Tories because his rapid conversion to progressive politics was so sudden, and so Damascene. Nobody saw it coming.
In contrast in Australia there is a cottage industry among commentators in turning out evidence to the effect that Mr Turnbull’s heart all along had been with the progressives.
Mr Johnson is a biographer of Winston Churchill and has candidly modelled himself on the wartime leader of whom he writes in his book The Churchill Factor……..
“The case against him is that he was not only the greatest man of modern British history but also, in his own sweet way, something of a tosser in his treatment of others.
“…….he behaved like a spoilt child; and we must accept that he was used to getting his way…”
Shakedowns for Prince’s Uncles Edward Duke of Windsor and George Duke of Kent
The Duke of Windsor was blackmailed at least twice and the Duke of Kent was also blackmailed. In all these instances no money was paid out.
The current civil action against their great nephew Prince Andrew introduces new facets to an historical theme.
No money can be paid out because it is known that it will create a precedent in which others will step forward claiming their payments.
No civil action in fact can be brought against a child of the monarch.
No matter what action is brought and on whatever grounds no child of the monarch can be apprehended while in a royal palace.
Any action from New York has to cross a high wall of jurisdiction rendered more impenetrable if the action involves New York’s own by-laws.
The validity of the action involving as it does cohorts of operatives extends bar practice contingency validity to the point at which it will likely fail to be recognised in the United Kingdom.
Manoeuvring in the United States New York jurisdiction now devolves on smoking out Prince Andrew so that he forsakes the United Kingdom to face in person his challengers on United States soil.
In a curious dynamic the various elements of the case intensify in hysteria as they make landfall in the United Kingdom.
The United States is in the throes of one of its 20 year-cycle moral convulsions and in this fervour the pressure on Prince Andrew grows to confront face-to-face allegations at their source.
Of a temperate nature Prince Andrew has already sought to confront his accusers directly. As he himself in his candid gun deck manner might now concede the result was that he was holed below the waterline.
This was in the scene-setting BBC interview. The Royal Family all evidence to the contrary continues to view the BBC from a 1950s standpoint. Ground rules were certainly laid out and these appear to have included the treatment centred on the prince’s proness or otherwise to human perspiration or sweat as it was deliberately and disdainfully described.
The scheme appears to have been to allow the prince to touch upon his valiant service as a Royal Navy pilot in the Falklands war in which he deliberately acted as decoy target for incoming missiles.
What was not perceived was that the putting of one’s neck on the line for one’s country no longer counts as a virtue.
The episode was a master class for any law school in the folly of anyone under challenge being allowed to put across their side of the story free-form.
Hook after hook after hook flew from the encounter like sparks and it these that continue to fuel the audience-hungry legacy media’s carefully concocted indignation in the Anglosphere.
This compounding shock-horror barrage feeds on itself. If it shows any sign of flagging it is quickly fired up from New York by the operatives driving the action against Andrew.
This takes the form of Prince Andrew’s opponents squeezing into the frame behind a bank of microphones in a triumphalist show boating crowd photo-op.
Curiously, even given the de-skilling of the mainstream, this is received at its destination which is the other side of the Atlantic, the UK, as yet another nail in the prince’s coffin.
Neither has there been anything more than a hushed outline of the ways in which the royal bloodline has long been protected from civil actions.
Prince Andrew has never pretended to be something that he is not. When he served as UK Trade and Investment’s ambassador at large he found it hard to find enthusiasm for the quotidian run of the mill transactions, but visibly got fired up over defence trade opportunities.
.Prince Andrew, a fellow of adventurous spirit, has always laid himself vulnerable to a shakedown.
His advisers tend to bend to his strong personality. They need to remind their client that it is up to his accusers to build their case and without any unintentional help from him.
So would citing the various cases involving Andrew’s ducal great uncles (pictured above) Edward Duke of Windsor and George Duke of Kent serve to remind an excitable legacy media of an inevitability surrounding such actions.
Beijing Hollywood Hegemony in movies and network news
Beijing’s penetration of Hollywood means that the Dalai Lama and Tibet have been squeezed out of the global human rights discourse.
The Tibet issue is viewed by Beijing as the most sensitive of all its human rights liabilities.
Its new Hollywood hegemony has given Beijing this leverage because studios and network news broadcasting organisations are amalgamating. In this structure there is also print media.
Beijing’s silent yet effective control over the world box office was greatly aided by Hollywood’s unquestioning adhesion to international global cooperation organisations actually under the control of China.
The takeover also came about while the United States was distracted by other Beijing strategies such as the one to control the metals needed for the English-speaking zone’s Green “revolution.”
The rules of engagement between the Chinese Communist Party and Western entertainment and broadcast media is that Tibet is out of bounds, off-limits.
Twenty years ago the most storied figure in Hollywood was the exiled Dalai Lama celebrated in such blockbusters Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun.
Nowadays anything related to the Dalai Lama and the annexed Tibet is quietly spiked.
How did Washington allow China to steal such a march on it in such a key industry?
After all, it was known that China was following the pattern of its Far East neighbour Japan in targeting industrial sectors in order to dominate them.
This resource focussing had allowed Japan to take over in succession shipbuilding and then the automotive sector.
The curtain only in very recent times has gone up on China’s determination to be the world’s pre-eminent box office operator.
China has seeded thousands of movie theatres throughout its provinces, the better for its populace to appreciate China’s own output of patriotic movies and also to view Hollywood’s output providing that the content and those involved with making it meet approved standards.
Richard Gere (pictured with the Dalai Lama) was among the first to encounter this kind of disapproval especially when he publicly observed that the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics signalled approval for the regime’s human rights record.
He also signalled the way in which Hollywood was becoming dependent on China in terms of distribution and also finance.
The fade out for the Dalai Lama in Hollywood and thus in United States can be dated from the mergers and acquisitions which saw the television channels, studios, and print media starting to share the same holding companies.
Hollywood’s view of China remains the bumper sticker notion that its ruling CCP lifted a quarter of the world’s population out of poverty and without any probing to the effect that it was the CCP that put them there in the first place.
This same CCP’s plan to mobilise this same proportion of the world’s population into the commanding movie market hid in plain sight.
The integration of movie making and television news broadcasting allied with global finance has made vulnerable the entire sector to China policies as the blackout on the Dalai Lama has revealed.
The Dalai Lama insists on describing himself a “simple monk,” and deliberately remains open on the matter of his being the last of this line of theocrats.
The line in fact relies upon the Panchen Lama who is his designated selector for the next Dalai Lama. It is the Panchen Lama who evaluates the portents that identify the next in the line of Dalai Lama.
The problem is that the Panchen Lama disappeared days after he was selected by the Dalai Lama and is thought to be in China, adding weight to the assertion that the next in the line of succession will be chosen there too.
The CCP targeting of movie entertainment is now revealed as a keystone of another objective which is to boost consumer spending within China by flooding provincial district with movie theatres.
Palace of the Alhambra, Spain
By: Charles Nathaniel Worsley (1862-1923)
From the collection of Sir Heaton Rhodes
Oil on canvas - 118cm x 162cm
Valued $12,000 - $18,000
Offers invited over $9,000
Contact: Henry Newrick – (+64 ) 27 471 2242
Mount Egmont with Lake
By: John Philemon Backhouse (1845-1908)
Oil on Sea Shell - 13cm x 14cm
Valued $2,000-$3,000
Offers invited over $1,500
Contact: Henry Newrick – (+64 ) 27 471 2242