Prince Philip asks Obama “Can you tell foreign leaders apart?”
Thursday, April 2, 2009
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.
Reports also circulated regarding Obama practicing bowing and brushing up on courtly etiquette ahead of the meeting.
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 documentedthat 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 atwhat 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.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
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.
As Alex Jones documents in his seminal documentary End Game, this mindset is endemic amongst the elite.
Skip to the bottom of this article for a vast selection of similar quotations from Philip, all advocating culling the “surplus” human population.
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 the same week Harry’s father and Philip’s son, Prince Charles, caused another race row after it emerged that he had been calling an Asian friend by the nickname “Sooty”.
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 Nazisand 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.