For the first time ever, foreign countries are recommending that their citizens should no longer travel to the usually gentle and peaceable United Kingdom on the ground that the growing frequency of violent riots has made us a dangerous destination.

How has this happened?

Our Marxstream media, now more or less entirely captured by agents of influence for Communism, have – almost without exception – blamed the riots over and over and over again on “the far Right”. Even the once-conservative Daily Telegraph goes on and on and on about “the far Right”.

By curious contrast, our Communist communicators have somehow failed to describe as “far-Left” the openly racist, anti-Semitic rioters who have raged on our streets almost unhindered by the police ever since the totalitarian enemies of democracy joined forces deliberately to provoke Israel into self-defence by invading its territory and brutally torturing and murdering its women and children.

Very nearly always, it is the totalitarian far Left – Islamists who call themselves “freedom-fighters”, Communists who call themselves “Socialists”, repressives who call themselves “progressives”, illiberals who call themselves “liberals” – who take to the streets in large numbers and commit crimes of violence and destruction.

Particularly in the United Kingdom, perhaps the world’s most tolerant and kindly-intentioned nation, it is very rare that those who believe in democracy, liberty, free markets and Western, Judaeo-Christian civilization march in the streets, and still rarer that they preach hatred or cause damage and destruction.

The proximate cause of the now-widespread alarm among conservative, libertarian citizens is unchecked mass immigration. Even during the past 14 years of strikingly rickety and incompetent government by the formerly Conservative party once successfully led by Margaret Thatcher, millions of immigrants – whether legal or illegal – have arrived in Britain.

When I served as a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, the population of the UK was about 60 million, and the net influx of migrants was 20,000 to 40,000 a year: equivalent to little more than a twentieth of one percent of the population. That level of net immigration was sustainable. The nation could, and did, welcome and absorb the incomers, most of whom were willing – indeed, eager – to play their full part as British citizens.

However, after Margaret Thatcher was driven from office by the far Left in her own party because she had dared to oppose the ever-tightening grip of the European tyranny-by-clerk on the British economy (on this, as on much else, she has since been proven spectacularly right), a succession of limp-wristed, ineffectual and inept prime ministers of both parties have made no attempt to prevent the dangerously-increasing inflow of both lawful and illegal immigrants.

Since she left office the population of the UK has risen from 60 million to more like 70 million, and most of that growth has come from net immigration. At least 6 million net immigrants have settled in the UK since Margaret Thatcher left office.

In 2023 alone, net inward migration was 800,000. Only 600,000 live births were recorded in Britain, and there were 200,000 deaths among little children killed by abortion (and torn limb from limb and removed in pieces from their mother’s womb, without even having been given an anesthetic first).

For the first time in modern history, more people arrived from overseas by net immigration than from this country by being born here.

When Margaret Thatcher was in office, from 1979-1990, everyone knew that immigration would be kept firmly under control. The Prime Minister took a no-nonsense approach. Early in her premiership, her staff arranged for a Conservative back-bencher to ask her a Parliamentary Question about immigration. In her answer, she made it crisply clear, in her inimitable style, that anyone thinking of entering this country illegally would be swiftly, firmly and decisively dealt with and sent packing. As a direct result of her plain speaking, illegal immigration more or less ceased.

Tony Abbott, the Conservative prime minister of Australia, would take the same no-nonsense approach a decade or two later. When small boats overladen with immigrants from the Indonesian archipelago began to arrive from the north, he sent the formidable Australian navy straight into action. Every small boat was intercepted; the immigrants and their racketeering smugglers were taken off by a warship; the smugglers were imprisoned for several years under harsh conditions and then sent packing; and the small boats were repaired, refueled and reloaded with the immigrants, who were pointed firmly northward and told to make their way back to Indonesia, with a warning ringing in their ears that if they made any attempt to return they would be treated no less harshly than their smugglers. Within just two weeks, the message got through and the boats stopped coming.

In this country, the Home Office – captured decades ago by Communist agents of influence as part of what the Marxist commentator Antonio Gramsci called “the long march through the institutions” (the deliberate penetration of all the centers of power and influence in Western nations) – has been deliberately bungling immigration control.

Minister after Minister arrives eager to stop the boats, but each is subjected to a stern but mendacious lecture by or on behalf of the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office about the alleged impossibility of doing anything effectual about immigration because the United Kingdom is a signatory to numerous international treaties requiring us to give asylum to just about anyone who asks for it, and preventing us from deporting illegal immigrants unless an impossibly elaborate process is followed.

Nearly all the small boats arrive from France and other European nations bordering the English Channel. What the international refugee treaties actually say is that anyone who arrives illegally after passing through a safe country (such as France, Belgium or Holland) on the way may be sent straight back to that safe country. There is, therefore, no obligation on Britain, legal, moral or other, to permit the small boats to land. The Tony Abbott approach, therefore, is no less lawful here today than it was in Australia from 2013 to 2015.

Why, then, have the “Conservative” prime ministers of the past 14 years done nothing about illegal immigration? The answer is that they are terrified of the army of far-Left immigration lawyers who have threatened them, time and time again, that if they act as the international treaties fully entitle them to act they will face interminable and expensive challenges in the now Left-dominated courts.

What is more, the taxpayer must then pay the costs not only of the Government’s lawyers but also of the lawyers acting for the illegal migrants. And the courts have proven adept at tying up each case for years. While Ministers or the courts are expensively dithering, the migrants are sent not to prison but to swank hotels, where they are accommodated at taxpayers’ expense. Those who are scheduled for deportation simply abscond without trace and usually end up living on benefits paid for by taxpayers.

So desperate is the Home Office to find accommodation for the millions of migrants now waiting for their bogus asylum claims to be heard that it has been ringing around my friends who own large stately homes and offering them £1 million each if they will vacate their homes for seven years to allow them to house immigrants. Now, any competent Minister would never allow any such offer to be made on his watch, for a very good reason. Imagine yourself as a penniless economic migrant – typically male, aged 18-25. You arrive in Britain and, instead of being sent to prison, are put up the most elegant of stately homes, at no charge. The first thing you do is get on the phone and tell your mates in Albania or Syria or wherever that they must come to Britain quick.

A growing number of hotels that are housing immigrants now exclude all other guests, but they do not like to admit that they are making a fortune at taxpayers’ expense charging full rates to the taxpayers for 100% occupancy by immigrants.

Aa a result, an after-dinner party game has become popular in Britain. Hundreds of the hotels that now house only immigrants are known. The game consists in ringing the hotel reception and asking to book a room on a typically unbusy termtime weekday about a year hence. The hotel will respond that it is fully booked that day.

Then another dinner-party guest telephones the hotel and asks for a booking on another unbusy day, with the same response. The game continues until the hotel realizes that all the calls are from the same dinner party. But at no time will any hotel (or, for that matter, stately home) admit that it is filled with immigrants: for the Home Office makes them all sign a confidentiality agreement.

In this and other ways, the Blob – the increasingly effete and incompetent civil service and wider governing class – does its best to prevent the British people from finding out the sheer scale on which it is deliberately encouraging net inward migration on a scale unprecedented in the history of Britain.

Why does the Blob thus deliberately encourage net immigration? The reason is that the Blob is now Communist-dominated. The principal aim of any totalitarian regime – and the Communist-led or Communist-influenced giants of the East (Russia, China, North Korea et hoc genus omne) is to ensure that their own populations do not do as the people of Russia did under Boris Yeltsin, and overthrow the cruel Communist regime.

The Communist tyrants of Russia during the dismal Soviet era had good reason to fear the freedom and prosperity and democracy enjoyed by the peoples of the West. For, although the Soviet butchers took elaborate steps to prevent their populations from ever discovering that life in the West was vastly better than under Communist misrule, they were unable to hide the fact that life under the rule of the ballot box was vastly safer, richer and better than under their drab, cruel tyranny.

One of the steps the intelligence community in the West took to make sure that the peoples of the Communist countries found out that life in the West was best was to smuggle in Western goods that were simply unobtainable under Communism. For instance, one could not get well-made, well-fitted jeans behind the Iron Curtain. So, when I used my bright orange British Military Mission card to cross from West to East Berlin, I used to wear half a dozen pairs of jeans, which I would then give to my contacts in the East for distribution to their friends. By simple measures like this, the subject nations groaning under Communism came to long for the Western lifestyle, and, in the end, helped themselves to it. The Communists could not stop them. The Soviet empire collapsed. Good riddance.

However, when Mr Putin’s silent coup of 1999/2000 deposed Mr Yeltsin and replaced him with a new tyranny, this time led by some 6000 former KGB colleagues of his, the new Communist-led regime vowed that it would never again allow the West to retain its freedom, its prosperity or its distinctive, Judaeo-Christian philosophy of peace, plenty and love.

To this end, the Disinformation Directorate of the former Kamitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti was set to work finding ways to bring the Western political and economic hegemony to an end, rendering life in the West just as miserable as in the East.

One of the most important of the many methods adopted by the Directorate was and is the promotion of the climate-change nonsense. Since the long march through the institutions of the West had already captured the universities, the news media, the civil service, the trades union leaderships and the scientific community, it was not difficult to sell the idea of global warming as a problem. As a result, the West has replaced the free market in energy with a badly-managed market controlled by the Blob. Therefore, electricity prices in Britain and most European countries are seven times those in Russia and China, India and Pakistan, all of which are greatly increasing their emissions of CO₂ while ensuring that their agents of influence here peddle the climate-change nonsense.

When we defeated the Communist-led miners’ strike of 1984-5, the Russians were furious. They had trained the Communist leader of the mineworkers, Arthur Scargill, for almost six months in 1979, starting a couple of months after Margaret Thatcher had been elected to office. They had paid at least $25 million (that we were able to trace) to the mineworkers’ leadership via the then-Communist Czechoslovak embassy, hoping we would not notice. They had successfully brought down the previous Conservative government in 1974, and had been confident of doing the same to Margaret Thatcher, who, however, was very much better prepared than her incompetent predecessor, Mr Heath.

When the strike was defeated in the spring of 1985, the Directorate held a crisis meeting in Moscow that summer to work out how to continue the destruction of the feared Western economies now that their previous method of choice – capturing the leaderships of the major Western trades unions – had failed. It was then that they decided to capture the environmental movement, and, by December of that year, they had already captured the leadership of Greenpeace, driving out the true environmentalists who had founded and led it, as Patrick Moore, one of those driven out by the entryists that winter, told me a couple of years ago.

When global warming came along, the Directorate rapidly captured the issue and, through its many agents of influence throughout the institutions Communized by the long march, began pushing it sedulously in the West. For it was essential to their program that they should destroy the free market, by which the decisions of everyone deciding how to spend his or her money shaped the economy, and replace it with a managed market. Nowhere is this more evident than in the market for static and locomotive energy, which is now totally and ineptly controlled by the Blob, causing not only a visible collapse in manufacturing industry in the West but also a growing disbelief in the value of the free market among young people in particular.

But the most significant and damaging method of destroying the freedom and prosperity of the West is the promotion of net inward migration. The galloping growth in illegal immigration in Britain, in the United States and in many other countries of the West has been sudden. In the intelligence community, there is a near-infallible rule of thumb: if a damaging societal change occurs suddenly or over a very short timescale, it has not happened by accident. Someone has made it happen.

Net migration serves the purpose of the Communist regimes in making life in Western nations ever poorer, costlier, less pleasant and more dangerous in several ways. For the consequences of net mass immigration are numerous and severe.

To begin with, when I worked in 10 Downing Street 40 years ago we had immigration under control, and we had no need to lay plans for the staggering increase in net immigration that has since occurred. If we had had the slightest notion that subsequent British governments, following the capture of power in Russia by Putin and his KGB cronies in 1999/2000, would allow net immigration on anything like the present scale, we could have laid plans for more hospitals, schools, power stations, roads and railways, factories, houses and prisons.

But no such plans were laid. For instance, one of my earliest briefs to Margaret Thatcher, in the early 1980s, showed that there was no shortage of housing anywhere in Britain. There was the artificial appearance of a shortage, particularly in central London, where there were numerous cardboard-box encampments, particularly along prominent streets and close to railway termini.

Given that there was plenty of housing everywhere, I decided to investigate. At the time, a lad of 18 who had fallen on hard times was living in my tiny cottage in Richmond, a London suburb. I learned from a friend that a house owned by the Communist-run Lambeth Council, a local authority in south London, had been standing empty for 20 years. I contacted the Council and offered either to buy the house or to pay for the lad to homestead it, rescuing it from dereliction, and then to live in it.

The Council’s housing commissar gave me a most revealing answer. He said that it was not the policy of the Council to let homeless people live in the empty houses owned by the Council. I asked how many such empty houses there were, and the commissar refused to tell me. I asked why the Council was prepared to leave its houses empty rather than housing the homeless. Again he refused to tell me.

Therefore, I contacted the Environment Department, which controlled housing policy. I asked the press office to tell me, for each of London’s 33 boroughs, what percentage of the housing stock owned by the boroughs was standing empty. The press office refused to give me the information. When I asked why not, I was told that the information was “political”. Of course it was political: the Department of the Environment is a government ministry.

So I asked how many “dwelling units” (the bureaucratic term for houses and apartments) each of the 33 boroughs owned. The press office gave me the figures, borough by borough. Then I asked how many dwelling units were standing empty, borough by borough. The press office gave me the figures. I worked out the percentages for myself.

At that time (1987) there were 15 Communist-controlled boroughs, 3 “Liberal Democrat” boroughs and 15 Conservative-controlled boroughs. Ranked by percentages, the 15 Communist-controlled boroughs had the highest percentages of empty dwelling units; the 3 “Liberal Democrat” boroughs had the next highest percentages, and the 15 Conservative boroughs had the lowest percentages.

I wrote an article for the then London newspaper, the Evening Standard, exposing this plainly deliberate attempt on the part of the Communists to cause homelessness in London by leaving taxpayer-funded homes empty. I say “deliberate” for two reasons. First, the probability that the borough-by-borough percentages of homes standing empty would be so clearly and so neatly divided along political lines by accident was near nil as made no difference. Secondly, I knew that Shelter, then a “charity” supposedly representing the homeless, was run by a self-confessed Communist.

I went to see her, gave her a copy of the article from the Evening Standard and reminded her that her action in working with her fellow-Marxists in the Communist-controlled boroughs to keep homeless people visibly on the streets in an attempt to destabilize Margaret Thatcher’s duly-elected Conservative government was high treason, for which the penalty is death.

I told her, in no uncertain terms, that she faced prosecution for her role in this scandal. I gave her six months to get all the cardboard boxes off the streets and all the homeless people into accommodation. Sure enough, within six months, the cardboard boxes and tents and other mainfestations of artificial, politicized homelessness had vanished.

Now, however, there is a very severe shortage of houses, because there are six million extra people suddenly in the country who ought not to be here, and for whom no plans have been made.

And the economy has been so fatally weakened by the cost and disruption caused by climate-change mitigation policies that are entirely unnecessary that the private sector, on its own, simply cannot afford to build enough houses for the millions of immigrants.

Likewise, the roads are clogged, the railways jammed, the airports overrun, the health service swamped. But the Blob – the Communist-dominated or Communist-influenced governing class – is either actively promoting the economic and societal harm resulting from this unprecedented mass migration or burying its pampered heads in the sand and doing nothing serious to address the crisis.

Now, the Blob – whose members, for instance, enjoy pensions worth four times the pensions of ordinary taxpayers – is wealthy and powerful. It simply does not come into contact with, or suffer from, the endless problems caused by the decades of uncontrolled mass net immigration over which it has so incompetently or malevolently presided.

Who, then, are those who suffer first and foremost from the destruction caused by unbridled net immigration? They are the poorer working-class white people – particularly young people – living in the inner cities. Demand for ever-scarcer housing has forced house prices up so fast that most young people at school today (if, that is, the school system still has room for them at all) will never be able to afford a home of their own.

Immigrants are housed at no expense to themselves, while young people who leave home have to pay massive rents for accommodation that is often very poor value for money. Naturally, they are more than a little upset by the difference between how they are treated and how illegal immigrants are pampered.

If a young person wants a job, he will find it hard to get one, because immigrants are for various reasons given priority. If anyone falls ill, he will find it hard to get an appointment even with a local doctor, still less a bed in hospital for a much-needed operation.

Recently, I went to St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London for a check-up. I decided to arrive an hour early. I sat in the waiting room and watched the screen on which the names of patients appeared as they were called into the consulting rooms one by one for their appointments. In that entire hour, the only English name on that screen was mine.

But the Blob doesn’t care. Civil servants can afford private hospital treatment; they can use Government cars; they often get Government housing; and, above all, they are vastly overpaid and still more vastly over-pensioned. So they simply don’t care. That is why they have no understanding of, or sympathy with, the genuine and pressing concerns of the people who have taken to the streets in recent weeks to protest at the destruction of their lives, their hopes and their futures by mass immigration.

The intelligence background to mass net immigration is also worth reviewing. The Communists, whose agents of influence have been doing such damage for decades throughout the institutions of the West, realized some years ago that they could do enormous harm to the Western nations if they took charge of the people-smugglers, funded them and organized them, just as they had long ago taken charge of the drug-smuggling trade, again to promote harm in the West.

Here, it is not just the Communist-led giants of the East who are promoting and organizing the people-smugglers. It is also other nations that can save themselves a fortune by not bothering to imprison their most hardened criminals. Instead, they quietly give the felons a choice: a long period of penal servitude, or voluntary illegal immigration to a Western country. All choose the latter.

No surprise, then, that the crime-rate has soared as the immigration rate has soared. A significant proportion of the immigrants are young criminals who, instead of doing time in their countries of origin, are instead doing crime in the West. At the misdemeanour level, for instance, shoplifting – once rare in Britain – is now near-universal. Shopkeepers who resist are often subjected to violence, and many have simply decided to go out of business. As a direct result, many city centers, even in rural areas, are now boarded up, lifeless and decaying.

Now, in a democracy there is supposed to be something one can do about a governing class so captured by Communism that it is on the point of completing the utter economic and social destruction of the feared and hated West. In theory, one can vote out an incompetent or Communist government and replace it with a government that believes, as I do, that Western civilization and its gentle, loving, free-market, Judaeo-Christian philosophy, is rare, precious and worthy of protection.

To borrow from the Portuguese-American philosopher George Santayana when speaking of the British Empire, “The world never had sweeter masters”.

But voting either for the former ruling “Conservatives” or for the Communists who took office after the recent British general election would not make any difference to the pressing problems for working young people some of which I have outlined here.

That is why Nigel Farage (whom I had been begging to come forward a second time after his masterly victory in the Brexit referendum) has done so well as the leader of the Reform party that he established two or three years ago. As a result, he obtained nearly as many votes as the “Conservatives”. Had Reform and the “Conservatives” stood on a joint ticket, as Reform’s predecessor the Brexit party and the “Conservatives” had stood on a joint ticket in 2019, the Communists would have been kept out of office.

However, a couple of Communist stooges in Conservative campaign headquarters in London have for some years been carefully excluding true Conservatives from standing as candidates in parliamentary elections. The most recent and most startling of these exclusions was that of David Frost, the civil servant who had successfully negotiated the Brexit deal, and who has since been publishing a first-class, truly Conservative weekly article in the Daily Telegraph. Several constituencies had wanted him as their MP, but the stooges at campaign headquarters kept him out. It was that malevolent exclusion that led me, for the first time in my life, not to give my vote to the “Conservatives”.

Will there ever again be a libertarian, free-market, Judaeo-Christian government in Britain (or, for that matter, in the United States? It will not be easy, because the first two generations of immigrants always vote Communist, though eventually they learn not to.

That was the reason why Mr Biden, having stolen the 2020 election with the assistance of his paymasters the Chinese regime, which put $200 million into the Dominion voting machine corporation just one month before the 2020 election (I bet you haven’t seen that fact reported anywhere), issued a series of executive orders whose effect was to end President Trump’s controls on immigration, particularly at the southern border. Since then, some 8 million illegal immigrants have crossed the Colorado River and have then been carefully bussed to the swing states, where nearly all of them will vote Communist (or “Democrat”, as it is quaintly but misleadingly called).

I was recently asked whether I thought Mr Trump, in the wake of his heroic response to the assassination attempt against him, was a shoo-in for the 2024 election. I said No, for three reasons. First, the replacement of the sick and ineffectual Mr Biden with the cackling Communist Kamala Harris and her even more Marxist choice for vice-president will make Mr Trump’s task harder.

Secondly, the Republicans, during the Trump presidency, did nothing either to deal with voter fraud on the part of the Communists or to uphold the constitutional right to freedom of speech against the censorship of all non-Communist viewpoints increasingly openly practiced by the electronic as well as the legacy news media. Democracy cannot work if the voters are not given fair access to information from all sides of the political spectrum. They are not given fair access, and the Republicans, despite the plainest of repeated warnings, did nothing about the anti-culture of censorship, deplatforming, cancellation and Goebbels-style Rufmord (reputational assault) that has all but silenced genuine political debate throughout the West.

Thirdly, imagine 8 million recent immigrants, nearly all voting for the Communist ticket. Mr Trump, unlike the “Conservatives” here, tried to get on top of mass illegal immigration and was beginning to succeed when Mr Biden, for self-serving political reasons, ended his successful measures, particularly including the Stay-In-Mexico policy. In Britain, since the Communists took over scant weeks ago, several thousand further illegal immigrants are known to have entered Britain.

The new Communist government here, like the Communist government in the United States, will do nothing to control immigration, for every immigrant turns the political terms of trade to the near-permanent advantage of the far Left. It is as simple as that.

Now you will understand why it is that the so-called “far Right” have been driven, by sheer desperation, to take to the streets in this normally peaceable nation. The vast majority of them are not racists, for Britain is more at ease with people of all nations and all backgrounds than anywhere else on Earth. But, though they could not vocalize their concerns as I have vocalized them here, they feel a profound unease that the entire political system no longer gives them an effective voice, even at the ballot box, for their votes are drowned out by the votes of non-citizens whom the far-Left-dominated Blob happily registers to vote even though they have broken the law by arriving here illegally.

In this connection, it is striking that in Minnesota, Ms Harris’ vice-presidential pick is notorious for having extended the franchise to illegal immigrants on an unprecedented scale. Their unlawful votes are what keep him in office. And that makes a mockery of democracy, as it is intended to do.

Strategically, then, the West is now in mortal danger. The world’s leading totalitarian regimes – Communist-led Russia and China and the extreme Islamist states of the Middle East – are now joining forces to complete the destruction of the West’s hegemony, its economies, and its democratic systems.

President Trump, who is good at acting upon intelligence briefs sent to him, promoted the Abraham accords – bilateral agreements between Israel and several prominent Arab states. Had a Communist been so successful in brokering peace, he would have been given the Nobel Peace Prize. Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel’s women and children in the October massacre was planned by the unholy alliance between the Communist and Islamist regimes, and its timing was governed by the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia were about to enter into a bilateral treaty under the Abraham accords.

Thanks to the intellectual weakness and habitual idleness of the RINOs in the United States and the “Conservatives” in Britain, the people who are taking to the streets are doing so in desperation. That in no way condones the violence that has occurred; but it is vital to understand that the concerns underlying the protesters’ actions are real, substantial, legitimate, and in urgent need of attention.

About the author from the Heartland Institute’s website:

“Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office, and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor. He is a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.

Lord Monckton was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as U.K. Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986.  In 1986 he was among the first to advise the prime minister that “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Centre for Forecasting: but she, like him, later changed her view.

On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. The first of his two articles on global warming in The Sunday Telegraph in November 2006 crashed its website after attracting 127,000 hits within two hours of publication.

A speech by Lord Monckton to 1,000 citizens of St. Paul, Minnesota in October 2009, in which he drew public attention to a then little-known draft plan by the U.N. to establish an unelected world government at the (now-failed) climate summit at Copenhagen in December 2009, received 1,000,000 YouTube hits in a week – thought to be the fastest-ever YouTube platinum for a political speech. Some five million have now seen the presentation on various websites.

Lord Monckton’s 2010 speaking tour of Australia played to packed houses and generated some 650 reports in news media. It is credited with having achieved a 10% shift in public opinion away from climate alarmism in one month, particularly among opposition parties. He was invited to give a personal briefing to Tony Abbott, at the time leader of the Opposition and subsequently prime minister.

Lord Monckton returned to Australia for another successful tour in June/July 2011, during which he delivered the annual Hancock Free Enterprise Lecture at the University of Western Australia and addressed the nationally televised weekly meeting of the National Press Club in a debate against the head of the Australia Institute.

On Labor Day, 2012, Lord Monckton addressed an enthusiastic crowd of 100,000 West Virginia mineworkers and their families on a mountain-top, the only venue large enough. He has also addressed 15,000 Tea Party supporters at the North Houston Racetrack and a similar number on the National Mall in Washington DC.

Lord Monckton has been crisscrossing the globe giving speeches, lectures, and university seminars to people on every continent with the exception of Antarctica. He has testified four times before the U.S. Congress. He spoke at United Nations conferences in Bali, Bonn, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Rio, and Qatar.

His lecture to undergraduates at the Cambridge Union Society on climate change was released as a feature-length movie, Apocalypse? NO!  He triumphed in debate at St Andrews University, where undergraduates voted against climate alarm for the first time at any British university, and at the Oxford Union, where undergraduates voted against climate alarm for the first time at any English university.

For his work on the climate, Lord Monckton, who was Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in 2013, has been presented with numerous honors, including the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom, the Valiant-for-Truth Award of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Santhigiri Ashram Award, and the Intelligence Medal of the Army of Colombia.

Lord Monckton has authored numerous papers on the climate issue for the layman, as well as for leading peer-reviewed scientific journals.  He established in a paper for the World Federation of Scientists that CO2 has a social benefit, not a social cost. He was also a co-author of the paper that showed the claim of “97% scientific consensus” about climate change to be false (the true figure is 0.35).”

(Editor: Lord Christopher attended Camp Constitution’s 2018-2019 annual family camps and as an instructor and  via Zoom at our 2020 annual camp.