• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

A compendium of the voices of others compiled by Dr Amy McGrath OAM PhD Centenary Medal for Electoral Reform (President H.S. Chapman Society) Published by Towerhouse Publications 2012 Previous publications: Forging of Votes Frauding of Votes Corrupt Elections (H.S. Chapman Society papers) Frauding of Elections The Stolen Election 1987 Chains of Marxian Republics For these and other works please refer to my website: www.amymcgrath.com.au Contact: This book will be issued free of charge in the public interest. If postage is involved, a donation for the cost will be welcome. Apply to Tower House Publications: PO Box 39, Brighton le Sands, Sydney NSW 2216. Enquiries to Australia: 02 9599 7915 “The work of Dr. Amy McGrath has been a major catalyst for electoral reform in Australia in modern times. As a regular witness before parliamentary inquiries, and as a public advocate, she has been the subject of both adoration and vilification. The updating of her landmark book, The Frauding of Votes? underlies growing national concern – and the necessity for urgent reform.” By Bob Bottom Author of seven best-selling books on organised crime and corruption. Bob Bottom’s special preface for this book provides a definitive insight into what he sees as the need for a royal commission not just into the true extent of electoral fraud, but into the conduct and effectiveness of electoral authorities. INDEX INTRODUCTION: ....................................................................................i SECTION 1: THE FABIAN REVOLUTION ..........................................1 SECTION 2: ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT ......................................17 SECTION 3: THE HARVEST OF COMMUNISM ...............................51 SECTION 4: PLOT TO CREATE A NEW WORLD ORDER ...............83 SECTION 5: SECRECY BY TREATY ..................................................99 SECTION 6: AGENDA 21 ...................................................................131 SECTION 7: FABIAN TREACHERY IN AUSTRALIA .....................167 CONCLUSION: ....................................................................................245 WOLVES IN SHEEP‘S CLOTHING INTRODUCTION ALABAMA ADOPTS FIRST OFFICIAL STATE BAN ON UN AGENDA 21 Monday June 4, 2012 When Alabama Adopted the first official State ban of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, it became the first State in the U.S.A. to adopt a tough law to protect private property, and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with, or participation in, a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up. The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 4771 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as “The Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the State House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed it into law the wildly popular measure – but only after heavy pressure from activists forcing his hand. Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way. The law states: “The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights, without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to, Agenda 21.” It adds a brief background on the UN plan, hatched at the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro. The official synopsis of the law explains: the people of Alabama, acting through their elected representatives – not UN bureaucrats i WOLVES IN SHEEP‘S CLOTHING – have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law, or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United State or the Constitution of the State of Alabama,” are also prohibited under this new measure. Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world – most notably a Germany based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem too: “The State of Alabama, and all political subdivisions, may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents. NB: Under ICLEI, 220,000 acres were taken from producing food to advance “Alabama Wild” parkland. ii INTRODUCTION EMPIRE By Niall Ferguson THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BRITISH WORLD ORDER AND THE LESSONS FOR GLOBAL POWER Hertog Professor of Financial History at the Stern School of Business, New York University and Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford The British Empire was the largest in history: the nearest thing to world domination ever achieved. By the eve of the second world war, approximately a quarter of the world’s land and the same proportion of the population were under some form of British rule. Yet for today’s generation, the British Empire seems a great modernizing force. The time is ripe for a reappraisal. In Empire, Niall Ferguson’s most popular and ambitious work yet, he boldly recasts the British Empire as one of the world’s greatest modernizing forces. In this important new work, fully illustrated with 125 colour images throughout, Ferguson argues that the British Empire was the driving force behind what he calls ‘Anglobalization – the transformation of the world economy along British lines. For better or for worse, the world we know today is in large measure the product of Britain’s Age of Empire. Nearly all the key features of the twenty-first century world – the spread of capitalism, the communitarian revolution, the notion of humanitarianism and the institution of parliamentary democracy – can be traced back to the extraordinary expansion of Britain’s economy, population and culture from the seventeenth century until the mid- twentieth. On a vast and vividly coloured canvas, Empire shows how the British Empire gave rise to modernity, mobilizing a formidable array of pirates and pioneers, missionaries and mandarins, bankers and robber barons. Displaying the originality and rigor that have made him the brightest light among British historians, Ferguson also shows that the story of the Empire has many lessons for the world today – in particular for the United States as it stands on the brink of a new era of imperial power, based once again on economic and military supremacy. iii WOLVES IN SHEEP‘S CLOTHING A dazzling tour de force, Empire is a remarkable reappraisal of the prizes and the pitfalls of global empire. The difficulty with the achievements of empire is that they are much more likely to be taken for granted than the sins of empire. It is, however, instructive to try to imagine a world without the British Empire. But while it is just about possible to imagine what the world would have been like without the French Revolution or the First World War, the imagination reels from the counterfactual of a world without the British Empire. As I travelled around the Empire’s remains in the first half of 2002 I was constantly struck by its ubiquitous creativity… It is of course tempting to argue that it would all have happened anyway, albeit with different names. Perhaps the railways would have been invented and exported by another European power, perhaps the telegraph cables would have been laid across the sea by someone else too. Maybe, as Cobden claimed, the same volumes of trade would have gone on without bellicose empires meddling in commerce. Maybe too the great movements of population that transformed the cultures and complexities of whole continents would have happened anyway. Yet there is reason to doubt that the world would have been the same or even similar in the absence of the Empire. Even if we allow for the possibility that trade, capital flows and migration could have been ‘naturally occurring’ in the past three hundred years, there remain the flows of culture and institutions. And here the fingerprints of Empire seem more readily discernible and less easy to wipe away. When the British governed a country – even when they only influenced its government by flexing their military and financial muscles – there were certain distinctive features of their own society that they tended to disseminate. A list of the more important of these runs as follows: 1. The English language 2. English forms of land tenure 3. Scottish and English banking 4. The Common Law 5. Protestantism 6. Team Sports iv INTRODUCTION 7. The limited or “nightwatchman” state 8. Representative assemblies 9. The idea of liberty The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the Empire – the thing that sets it apart from its continental rivals. I do not mean to claim that all British imperialists were liberals – far from it. But what is very striking about the history of the Empire is that whenever the British were behaving despotically, there was almost always a liberal critique of that behaviour from within British society. Indeed, so powerful and consistent was this tendency to judge Britain’s imperial conduct by the yardstick of liberty that it gave the British Empire something of a self-liquidating character. Once a colonized society had sufficiently adopted the other instructions the British brought with them, it became very hard for the British to prohibit that political liberty to which they attached so much significance themselves.

Load more

  272

Copy Link