As the world mourns (or cheers, or jokes about) the death of Queen Elizabeth, some on the right-wing fringes are warning that the ascendency of her son Charles to the throne might just trigger the end of the world as we know it.
And even if he doesn’t manage to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, King Chuck is definitely going to force us to eat bugs.
What on earth are these people talking about? Well, Prince –now King — Charles is a top man in the global elite and he likes to go global elite-y stuff, like attend World Economic Forum meetings and give speeches about the actually very real dangers of climate change.
At one of these conferences a couple of years back, he introduced the world to something called “the Great Reset,” a terribly named plan for an ecologically sustainable post-COVID economic recovery — which conspiracy theorists think is the first stage in a diabolical plot to impoverish and depopulate the world. And make us live in pods. Eating bugs.
The conspiracy theorists really love talking about the bugs, which are, to be fair, actually being pushed by some environmentalists as a cheaper and more ecologically friendly replacement for meat. While Charles has not, to my knowledge, weighed in specifically on the bug-eating thing, his pal Klaus Schwab, chair of the WEF, has spoken of meat as being ecologically “unsustainable.” Which means, nudge nudge, you’ll have to eat bugs instead, say no more!
In a post on his Substack, “investigative reporter” Jordan Schachtel fills in some of the details of Charles III’s alleged evil agenda.
King Charles is truly a king for our times, in the worst possible way imaginable. He is a perfect representation of the western ruling class and its pernicious agenda.
Charles, to put it bluntly, is an anti-human reprobate, who has lived a life of disgrace, hypocrisy, and corruption. But his lifestyle is the least of the issues at hand. Charles is a king who has embraced and promoted the most destructive causes of our times.
Most notably, Charles is both a climate catastrophist and an advocate for the depopulation agenda. …
Charles doesn’t actually care about the environment. It serves as window dressing for his true aims. His advocacy for the “green” agenda, through Davos talking points, is part of a campaign to usurp more power for the “elite” circles that he travels within.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, with Charles in charge, (at least of the British monarchy) we’re going to have to prepare ourselves for a world without meat. I suggest stocking up on beef jerky, which, if not the healthiest of all meat products is certainly the longest lasting.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
What power that they don’t already have do these people think “globalists” are trying to grab?
I’m more worried about his promotion of homeopathy and meddling in proposed British laws, so that Royal estates don’t have to meet labour or environmental law. “Constitutional Monarchy” my (sizeable) ass.
You know, I am starting to think some people don’t understand how the British Monarchy works. At least in these times.
Then again, these same people rarely know how anything works, really, so…
I’m sorry, when did Charles kill Diana? She died in a car accident!
I’m baffled as to why bugs are the bugbear here [sorry not sorry] when clearly once the meats are criminal everyone will be forced to be a soyboy plant-eater by law. Duh. This has been the globalist vegan agenda from the get-go and anyone who says otherwise is just shockingly ill-informed. We aren’t even hiding it. /s
@ happy cat
That’s what they want you to think!
@ big titty demon
The problem with vegan conspiracies is we still have to tell everyone.
We have been looking at the legalities of breeding Lone Star Ticks though.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alpha-gal-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20428608
I’m not thrilled with his opinions about Modern architecture, but I don’t think he can do much about…well, anything.
I watch the Accession Council this morning. It was quite interesting from a legal geekery viewpoint.
One thing though struck me. Once new seals have been designed and approved, the King will be given a hammer, and have to smash all his mother’s old seals.
That must be pretty hard emotionally.
Charles is a crank who has interfered and will continue to interfere in government in a way that violates constitutional norms. But he isn’t the kind of crank being described here.
@Mimi: can’t he?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/16/prince-charles-one-new-change
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/collapse-of-luxury-building-project-criticized-231577
Charles: “Please buy my overpriced biscuits.”
Cranks: “Argh!!! He is trying to make us eat bugs!”
Charles: “There’s no bugs in them. They’re just ordinary biscuits. I don’t know how I have the cheek to charge so much for them really.”
Cranks: “Arghhhhh!!!”
Charles: “Hnggggg…”
Meanwhile Sweaty Andy cowers in his luxury apartment.
@Big Titty Demon, Alan Robertshaw:
As far as the bugs thing is concerned, I think I might have an insight on that one.
See, it’s true enough that a vegan diet has it’s problems, in that it’s more difficult to balance nutritionally, is economically doubtful, and (to my bind) boring as hell. Now, your mileage may vary on the above, or any other objections one might have. But there’s one thing it isn’t.
Revolting. It’s not revolting. At worst to the minds of most non-vegans, it’s bland and boring. (Again, this may or may not be accurate). But it’s not offensive, as such.
But to the mind of most in the West (and rather a few in the East, depending), eating bugs? Gross. Unspeakably nauseating. Unclean, unhygienic, and inhuman. Nasty as all possible fucks.
Accurate or not,that is the general perception. And since the conspiracy wonks need something to make things properly conspiratorial, well…
I mean, “Charles III is gonna make us all eat beans and salad” just doesn’t have the right ring to it, now does it?
@Robert Haynie:
But to the mind of most in the West (and rather a few in the East, depending), eating bugs? Gross. Unspeakably nauseating. Unclean, unhygienic, and inhuman. Nasty as all possible fucks.
After all, it’s not as if White Western Anglo-diasporic Christendom pushed
pig flesh on Jews and Muslims. Or milk on East Asians and indigenous New World peoples. Or refined white wheat flour products on everyone.
Considering I live in a country that famously fought a war to be free of any influence by the British Crown, I’m pretty sure Charles can’t force me to eat anything. Even in England/Britain he can’t change people’s diets. He’s not a dictator like his ancestors, there’s some limits to what he can do. Sure, he can meddle in land/labor laws for exemptions and yes he’s entirely too fond of homeopathy, but he isn’t going to be proclaiming “Let them eat bugs!”
@Alan: Smashing the Queen’s seals? That’s going to be terribly hard for him. No one deserves that, particularly if they got on well with their mum.
Maybe he can get rid of Andy, like they did with Edward and Wallis.*
But inflicting those ticks on people is extremely morally wrong. Making it physically impossible to eat what they want is a terrible violation of their human rights. It would, in fact, kill a close friend of mine who can’t digest soy, wheat, or pulses/nuts. All her protein content MUST come from animals, and I should take it rather badly if I had to watch her starve to death. Even thinking about that is more repugnant than thinking about eating bugs.
I have eaten chocolate-covered ants, and it was a waste of chocolate.
*Although my mother and I have/had always approved of her statement that she “married him for better or for worse, but not for lunch”. I appreciate it more now that Mr. xn is retired. And I can’t even foist him off on the servants.
I can understand the food thing, to an extent.
People have different tolerance levels when it comes to trying new things. My brother steadfastly refuses to try new foods unless it’s similar to familiar things and there’s nothing else to eat; his home diet, as far as I’ve seen, consists of the same few dishes over and over and over again. My mother has a more varied diet and wants to try new things now and then, because eating the same things all the time is kind of boring, but is rather hesitant to do so; often she’ll ask me to be her “guinea pig” and to describe what something’s like before chancing it herself. And for myself, I have a strongly hedonistic / neophilic bent and happily throw myself into new and unfamiliar experiences even knowing that, in the end, I won’t like some of them. And rightly or wrongly, bugs are seen as too far removed from “ordinary” food experiences for most people to try willingly, and they’d resent being put in a situation where they’re practically forced to.
And on that last point, most people don’t have a strong connection to their food supply; domestic livestock are seldom seen, and are often remarked on as “haha dumb walking meat bags” when they *are* seen. Bugs, however, are everywhere, and mostly portrayed as gross creepy nuisances, which is pretty far removed from the concept of “food”.
@Alan
My dad said it reminded him of Gormenghast.
IDK the horror about eating bugs, these people eat shrimp right? And crab? And lobster? Why are land arthropods so bad when water arthropods are haute cuisine?
I’ve actually wanted to try out insect based foods for a while, but sadly they tend to be very expensive and unavailable in the US. Looking forward to the day when they’re a major source of protein here though. That would probably be a boon in terms of nutrition and food prices as well as ecology.
@Lollypop I had never thought of that, your dad is absolutely right. All this arcane flummery and mysticalitaciousness is very likely what Gormenghast is based on!
Which of the various suspects is our Steerpike, I wonder :-s
(have tried a couple of insect-based things; nothing so far that I’d really enjoy repeating, but I look forward to more palatable developments and would be happy to try ’em. Insect-based protein has got to be worth exploring, and I’d be up for it. Although perhaps not in the accidental drinking-straw-that-turned-out-to-have-dead-ants-in-it adventure sense; happy NEVER to repeat that one)
@Cyborgette: Lobsters, shrimp, and crab don’t crawl all over people’s yards and get called “gross” and “creepy”, and unless you live right by the sea, you won’t often see them outside of a grocery store context. They also look different enough that generally, a category separation between ocean-based crustaceans and land-based insects and arachnids and myriapods are easy and intuitive enough to make. Also, I qualified that with “generally” because there *do* exist people who are grossed out by the idea of eating ocean crustaceans as well, so there’s that. (My brother is one such person.)
@Snowberry, Cyborgette:
There’s also the size factor. In the case of shrimp and lobsters the main thing you eat is the tail meat (and claw meat in the case of the Maine Lobster), and it’s in discrete chunks. Crabs are a bit more iffy (I can’t sit down to one myself– I don’t feel like “I should eat this” but “Someone get me a large can of RAID”), but the meat is still discrete, especially in larger crabs like Snow and Dungeness– heck, they’re somewhat sustainable since usually only the claws are eaten, they grow back, and so they’re returned to the sea). In each case it’s meat separated from ‘bug’.
In the case of most insects, however, you’re pretty much going to have to eat most or all of the critter, shell and all, and let us be honest– that’s a much higher psychological hurdle for most of us to get over.
@ Robert Haynie
All of the crab I have encountered has been from the whole of the crab, hell you often see it presented on the shell at fish mongers (when you can find a fishmonger) or even supermarket fish counters.
The WEF is a big boogeyman for the conspiracy right at the moment. I suspect for some of the younger ones the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission aren’t hip enough anymore, assuming they actually have heard of them.
Saturday evening the Conservative Party of Canada elected Pierre Poilievre as their new leader. One of the things he said during his campaign is that he’d prohibit cabinet ministers from attending the WEF. Frankly I think that this is little more than pandering to the kook right, just like his claim he was going to make Canada the blockchain capital of the world, and fire the head of the Bank of Canada. If so it may come back to bite him in the ass. Especially since some on that side of the fence think he might be a WEF stooge in the first place.
Where does this leave the Hoppe-like ‘libertarian’ monarchist right-wingers? Will they argue that constitutional monarchy doesn’t produce the wise right-think monarch/owners would ‘naturally’ display?