THE TURNBULL ERA - THE RISE & FALL OF ANTI-AUSTRALIAN GLOBALISM




Take Back Australia, or Continue to Surrender to Global Organisations? 

Graham Williamson
August 2018



Why do our politicians put Australians last?

The egotistical anti-Australian, anti-democratic and vengeful seeking behaviour of some of our leading politicians has been on display for all to see during the Turnbull leadership challenge. The Turnbull leadership challenge has been caused by a resurrection of nationalist values and a reaction against globalist progressives in the Liberal Party who have been controlling Party policy for decades. While nationalists are of course, dedicated to Australians and Australian interests, globalists are enslaved by their dedication to global interests and an anti-Australian, anti-democratic ideology. The global ideology comes first, Australians come last. Within the Liberal Party the conservative nationalist values of Peter Dutton were perceived by globalists as a threat to their domination of the Party. This reaction against globalism is occurring around the world as the terrible consequences of globalisation are increasingly being realised. Headlines like “Malcolm Turnbull’s failure was not to put Australian interests first”, “Liberal Party's civil war isn't over — it's part of a global battle”, and “A Dutton win would give the conservatives a stranglehold on the Liberal party’s throat”, tell the story. Many in the Turnbull team were dedicated globalists who would do anything to stop the rise of democratic nationalism.

What is wrong with globalisation, why not put Australian interests last?

Former Foreign Minister Bishop often reminded us that we now play by ‘global rules’, not domestic democratic rules, although she also readily admitted the serious failures of globalisation. Freedom, in Australia & globally, is declining, & poverty levels in Australia are increasing as governments push up energy costs in pursuit of costly global agendas. Enormous resources are diverted away from Australia and Australians to wasteful and costly global agendas, and this will continue to increase under globalisation. Increasingly people are seeking authoritarian solutions and turning against the brand of ‘democracy’ that is presented to us.

Experts around the world, including some of the former greatest proponents of globalisation, now acknowledge there needs to be a return to some form of nationalism because of the failures of globalisation. Larry Summers for instance, a former chief economist of the World Bank who “was renowned in the 1990s and 2000s for being a blustery proponent of globalisation,” has reversed his view and now supports what he refers to as responsible nationalism.  According to Philip Roberts and colleagues from the University of Canberra, globalisation is also destroying society, but it is the undemocratic globalisation of Australian laws which is perhaps most alarming. In fact, the global harmonisation of laws is one of the purposes of UN agreements.
So why are our leaders forcing globalisation upon us? Put simply, some just want personal gain, some are just slavishly and blindly committed to their global ideological agenda, others though, who are well-meaning, believe globalisation can solve the world’s problems.

Globalists believe:
  1. Global conflicts and poverty can be reversed or eliminated by eliminating lines on a map (ie borders).
  2. Lowering the independence of rich countries and making all countries weak & dependent (ie global interdependence) will produce a global economic utopia.
  3. National sovereignty and democracy must be increasingly surrendered, & power progressively transferred to a controlling global authority in order to ‘solve’ problems which are promoted by the UN as being ‘global’.


On the road to globalism – UN controls domestic laws in Australia with the help of our politicians

An absolutely central part of globalism is the creation of an overriding all powerful global authority that can overrule countries and solve ‘global problems’. This is the United Nations. The United Nations must be progressively legitimised and empowered by a process whereby sovereign nations gradually surrender their laws and democratic decision-making capacity to the UN.

Since WW2 successive Australian governments have increasingly been committed to globalising Australian laws via imported UN agreements. This process accelerated in the 1970’s with the Lima Agreement, multiculturalism, and the Racial Discrimination Act. In the 1980s the UN increasingly controlled Australian refugee and human rights ‘laws’. Also in the 1980s, the Commonwealth used the Tasmanian Dams case to enable it to use international agreements to bypass the Australian constitution and produce environmental laws. In the 1990s this process exploded with the UN increasingly controlling Australian environmental laws through the Rio Agreement and Agenda 21, followed by Rio+20 in 2012 and the 2030 Agenda in 2015, signed by former Foreign Minister Bishop.  This process represents the globalisation of Australia’s domestic laws as they are deliberately brought under the control of, or harmonised with, the United Nations.

There is no better example of this than the 1992 Agenda 21 agreement introduced to parliament on 26th May 1993 by Ros Kelly, an agreement central to the globalisation of environmental law. For more than 2 decades successive Australian governments and State governments have been legislating the provisions of the UN Agenda 21 agreement into Australian laws while throughout this process they have falsely told the Australian people that Agenda 21 is ‘non-binding’. In fact, Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 specifically stated that signatory countries must incorporate the requirements of this agreement into domestic legislation. Our politicians promptly obeyed the UN, but this was not mentioned during election campaigns.

After decades of surrendering to various international agreements the UN now initiates and controls a multitude of domestic laws in countries around the world, including Australia. But the Australian people have been given no vote and continue to be insulted and deceived by the claim these agreements are ‘non-binding’, even while politicians continue to enshrine them in domestic legislation.

If we continue on this course we can look forward to a continuing sell out of Australia, Australian freedoms and democracy, and an increasing surrender to foreign agencies. We, and our children, will need to be committed to becoming more disenfranchised, more subservient, and more dependent.

Additionally, another fact our politicians forgot to tell the people, especially during election campaigns, is the practice of writing UN agreements into domestic laws around the world will eventually produce global ‘norms’ of behaviour which will ultimately become binding global law. But our politicians continued to say these agreements are ‘non-binding’. This whole process is made possible by a denial of fundamental human rights on a massive scale as governments prevented citizens from having an informed democratic vote on the various issues involved.
The result of this situation is that the UN now controls a multitude of domestic laws in countries around the world, enabled to do so by politicians who have converted the provisions of never ending UN agreements into domestic laws. In order to deceive the people and avoid democratic scrutiny, this has predominantly been carried out at an executive and bureaucratic level, and the people have been prevented from having an informed democratic vote.

Surrendering our Constitution to the UN & treating the will of the people with contempt
As long ago as 1992 the PM and all the Premiers signed the IGAE and agreed the Australian Constitution had become outdated in the new global era, an era in which Australia would increasingly depend upon UN interference and imported UN laws.  The Australian government points out, by using international agreements to bypass the Constitution, they now obtain foreign legitimisation and legalisation of otherwise unconstitutional policies and therefore effectively bypass any democratic consideration by the Australian people. Additionally, the undemocratic UN globalist values upon which these changes are based, although already embedded into the school curriculum, are now being implemented by global citizenship education under SDG 4.7. Is the Coalition really ‘full of the wrong people’, people who will help Bill Shorten to surrender Australian self-determination to international bodies, cleave a united nation into race, creed and colour groups” and “capitulate to Chinese influence?”
The Turnbull Globalist Team Seek to Place More Australian Laws Under UN Control

Any doubts about the agenda to bind the world with enforceable laws controlled by the UN have recently been completely dispelled by the UN vote (supported by Australia) to establish a binding ‘Global Pact for the Environment’, supported by Prime Minister Turnbull. The Global Pact for the Environment is a further attempt to convert the provisions of Agenda 21 and other agreements into binding global laws. This transition to binding centrally controlled global laws has the support of most UN member countries and is being pushed by politicians, the UN, and jurists.

Following on from signing the 2030 Agenda in 2015, and to further lock Australia into the UNs open borders global migration agenda, 12 months later in September 2016, the Turnbull government signed up for the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The New York Declaration draws heavily upon the 2030 Agenda but establishes more onerous compliance requirements. Member countries, including Australia, agreed the New York Declaration would culminate in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration which was finalised in July 2018, and will be adopted at the Intergovernmental Conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on 10-11 December 2018. The Global Compact on Migration stipulates that it isrooted in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed by former Foreign Minister Bishop. This will be followed by the UNs proposed “2035 agenda for facilitating human mobility.” However, when the compact was finalised in July 2018, Australia joined America and Hungary in rejecting the agreement because of the threat it posed to sovereignty and border control, and also because it constituted an attempt by the UN to control the media (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). At the forefront of this fight to protect Australian interests was Peter Dutton. Following the Agenda 21 precedent, the Migration Compact revealed the UNs determination to control domestic laws in all countries even though many still falsely claim the Compact is “non-binding”. As Chris Merritt points out in “Dutton is right to reject this claptrap”:
The Global Compact for Migration contains an affirmation of respect for national sovereignty that would have to be the world’s finest example of dissembling claptrap. It means nothing. Also bereft of meaning is the argument that this pact is benign because its provisions are not enforceable. They don’t need to be. They work by encouraging governments to pass laws that the UN considers to be correct…… Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should have nothing to do with this — unless they are happy to make the UN the arbiter of Australian law. This is a key measure of sovereignty and it resides exclusively with those who vote in Australian elections — and that is where it should stay.
The final straw for the Turnbull government involved the refusal of his conservative colleagues to accept emissions targets under the National Energy guarantee being enshrined in legislation as this would pose a threat to sovereignty.  According to Judith Sloan
“Turnbull wanted to see the target legislated so there could be no backsliding. In all likelihood, he was quietly happy that it would be easy to ramp up the target in the future. It didn’t really occur to him that many voters would see a legislated (or regulated) target as effectively surrendering our national sovereignty to an unelected international body, in this case a division of the UN. This view was shared by quite a few Coalition parliamentarians — sadly for Turnbull.”
The stage was now set for a leadership challenge with the globalists becoming increasingly frustrated by the rise of conservative nationalist values.

“This is the environment Peter Dutton and his supporters have sought to capitalise on. Questions of climate change, energy policy, immigration, freedom of speech and religion have been weaponised in an ideological battle to win back the soul of the Liberal Party, to reclaim it for its conservative base. Mr Dutton was seen as a leader who could drag back the disaffected Liberal voters who have defected to Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Outgoing prime minister Malcolm Turnbull called this an insurgency.”

According to Judith Sloan, the Turnbull government failed because of their globalist values and their disinterest in Australia and Australians:
the key to understanding the forces that effectively have ripped apart the Liberal Party and led to the departure of the prime minister is the distinction between globalism and nationalism. Globalism involves a commitment to world outcomes, to concern for the welfare of all citizens of the world. In its extreme form, nation-states disappear and we are all one big, happy family. …….Nationalism, on the other hand, involves commitment to country, with governments primarily concerned about the welfare of their own citizens. This often involves a considerable degree of pride in country on the part of citizens and a willingness to defend the borders and its way of life…..So where does Turnbull sit on the globalism versus nationalism spectrum? There is no doubt that, at heart, Turnbull is a globalist……… many voters expect the Australian government to stand up for Australian citizens and to protect the values they hold dear……..Globalism imposes groupthink. There are certain views that are acceptable and views that are not. Anyone who expresses some misgivings about climate change, for instance, is labelled a denier, a sceptic and a bad person. Anyone who expresses some misgivings about mass immigration is labelled a xenophobe, a racist and a bad person. Turnbull’s globalist predisposition was the ultimate reason for his demise.”
Australia though, is now in a completely untenable position, having ‘promoted the national interest on sovereign borders(ie.  withdrawing from migration compact), but at the same time promoting international interests in other areas (Paris climate change, 2030 Agenda, human rights etc). The UN wants ALL these ‘global problems’ under THEIR control, with the continuing help from our politicians of course.

The Dilemma
Australia is at the crossroads. Either we continue on our present path of surrendering our country and our freedoms to global interests, or we take it back and restore our freedoms and democracy.
The government openly prefers to obtain legitimisation and legalisation from the UN, and the dictators that comprise the UN, rather than seek the democratic approval of the Australian people. Politics is ideologically centred, NOT people centred. Elections are no longer about implementing the will of the people.

If we decide to continue on our present course we can look forward to a continuing sell out of Australia and Australian values and an increasing surrender to foreign agencies such as the UN which will increasingly control our laws and freedoms through an ever increasing array of treaties and agreements. We need to be committed to becoming weaker and more dependent. This is all part of an undemocratic new world order with redistribution of natural resources”,redistribution of financial resources”, “redistribution of technological resources”, “regulation of speech and culture”, and increased “foreign aid”.
The mind set behind globalism has been explained by Jonathan Haidt in ‘The Ethics of Globalism, Nationalism, and Patriotism’:
Globalists see nationalists as hopelessly parochial…….. Patriotism is therefore a form of parochialism—it is a commitment to a local and circumscribed group instead of adopting a universal or “citizen of the world” identity. This is why Globalists are often critical of patriotism, and why they sometimes say things about patriotism, or about their country, that Nationalists perceive to be disloyal at best, and treasonous at worst…….To be a nationalist, in America or in Europe, is to be frequently lectured to and called a rube by the globalist elite. ………. Most people believe that their own government should place their welfare above that of foreigners, just as most people believe that their own spouse, mother, friend, boss, or teammate should care more about them than about a stranger far away………The globalists assert things to be obvious and indisputable facts (e.g., “diversity is our strength”) that seem to nationalists to be obvious and indisputable falsehoods. The globalists explain away the nationalists’ policy preferences as resulting both from lack of education and from selfishness (i.e., not wanting immigrants taking scarce resources from the National Health Service). The globalists assemble panels of economists and other academics, and sometimes even movie stars, to argue their case……”
Today we are at the beginning of an epic world-wide political and ideological conflict between the forces of global governance (including disaggregated elements in democracies) and the liberal democratic nation-state…. The fundamental question beneath this global struggle is: Do Americans (and other free peoples) have the moral right to rule themselves? The globalists say no, sovereignty must be ‘pooled’.”
Are the globalists correct? Should Australians have no democratic say?

Democracy & Freedom or UN rule – a clear choice

Do we really prefer to have our laws made for us undemocratically by the United Nations, & by the authoritarian and Islamic countries which comprise the UN? While the South African constitution has been amended to ensure international laws and agreements are automatically subordinate to national laws, our politicians have refused to support the sanctity of democratic Australian laws.

According to the late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, in his address, “The Erosion of National Sovereignty.
“Some commentators say that the increasing interdependence of the nations of the world, and the need for Australia to relate to other nations, have made it necessary for us to transfer some of our sovereignty to the United Nations…….. The decisions they have so far made do not convince us that they have more wisdom than our own processes can provide……… It has been frankly said, by supporters of the system, that the promotion and protection of human rights is a modern tool of revolution. That revolution has already been successful in Australia. We already have laws that have created new rights at the expense of rights that we took for granted. We should not allow a revolution that affects us to be under the control of others. There is no good reason to allow rules that govern the rights of individuals and shape the nature of society to be interpreted by foreign bodies which have plainly shown an intention to give effect to their own modish notions…….. A nation is not sovereign unless it is independent from control from outside its own borders. In practice we have lost some of that independence. This erosion of our sovereignty was our own doing.”



Do you want more, & more, of the same, or do you care about freedom and Australia’s future?


Comments

  1. The United Nations has been covertly dictating policies at all levels of Australian Government since the UN's 1992 Rio 'Earth' Summit, through their 'International Council for Local Environment Initiative' Global {ICLEI} and since Sep 1999 ICLEI Oceania {Australia and NZ}. Without ratepayers knowledge or consent most if not all Australian councils, the Australian Local Government Association and State Local Government Associations that ICLEI uses to instruct councils on ICLEI policies, plans, agendas etc are ICLEI Oceania Members while Federal, State Governments and their owned and controlled identities, departments, academia, individuals, universities, companies and environmental groups are Associate ICLEI Members.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To my sisters and brothers Downunder. Please know that many Americans see the same things happening and feel the same way. Our President may not be to everyone's taste, but his is interested in protecting this country from the savage and ill affects of globalization. I think it better that Australia, America, and other nations retain their national sovereignty while endeavoring to help others in the world. This appears to be the only way we can survive.
    Please, keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Unknown. Your President is certainly to my taste and a lot of your brothers and sisters down here wished to God we could also elect a leader with even half his courage and genuine commitment to help his country recover from the mess his communist predecessor left behind. Especially withdrawing from the communist UN's Paris climate SCAM.

      Delete

Post a Comment





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!