Australian Leader Slams Globalism … Sort Of
Written by Alex Newman
Globalism is becoming politically toxic. But it is not dead yet. As an informal global coalition of national leaders forms to resist globalism and the engineered destruction of self-government and national sovereignty, Australia’s milquetoast prime minister, Scott Morrison (shown on left), added his voice to the growing chorus. But there is more to his half-hearted criticism of globalism than meets the eye.
In a speech last week, Morrison blasted “international institutions” that “demand conformity.” He also slammed the “negative globalism” that seeks to use coercion to “impose a mandate from an often ill-defined borderless global community.” Even worse, he continued, is when an “unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy” seeks to impose its agenda on the nations of the world.
“Only a national government, especially one accountable through the ballot box and the rule of law, can define its national interests,” Morrison continued in his October 3 speech at the globalist Lowy Institute in Sydney. “We can never answer to a higher authority than the people of Australia. And under my leadership, Australia’s international engagement will be squarely driven by Australia’s national interests.”
Other hallmarks of this era include “elite opinion and attitudes” that “have often become disconnected from the mainstream of their societies.” It is also an “era of insiders and outsiders, threatening social cohesion, provoking discontent and distrust.” And these developments represent a “challenge” to Australians’ “freedom, that depends on our dedication to national sovereignty, the resilience of our institutions, and our protections from foreign interference.”
Morrison contrasted the darker vision of globalism taking root with what he suggested was a better variant of globalism, in the past, when “like-minded sovereign nations” acted together “with enlightened self-interest.”
As examples, he cited the rebuilding of Japan and the Marshall Plan, ostensibly to rebuild Europe. In reality, though, despite the marketing gimmicks to justify the expense to U.S. taxpayers, the Marshall Plan was a crucial globalist tool in smashing national sovereignty in Europe to create the European Union, along with promoting Big Government across the continent. Morrison described that as a “co-operative and respectful internationalism.”
He expressed a longing for the good-old-days of globalism lite.
“On occasion, these efforts were forged through international institutions established to serve the states that formed them. On other occasions, the work was done by looser coalitions of partners,” Morrison explained. “But in all cases, it was the principled actions of nation-states, most often led by the United States, binding together the liberal democracies of the western world. And in all cases, these actions were underpinned by common values that anchor these societies.”
Today, though, globalists at international institutions such as the UN are increasingly seeking to dictate policy to the nation-states that created them, the prime minister warned. And so, Morrison said, his government would be focused on, among other things, working to “promote stability, prosperity, and engagement in our region by championing the common interest of sovereignty and independence as the natural antidote to any possible threat of regional hegemony.”
Morrison said it did not serve Australian national interests to have international institutions demand global conformity. “The world works best when the character and distinctiveness of independent nations are preserved within a framework of mutual respect,” he said, adding that this would include respecting the wishes of voters as expressed at the ballot box. “We should avoid any reflex towards a negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill-defined borderless global community — and worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.”
Lest anyone misunderstand his critique, though, Morrison then proceeded to go way out of his way to defend globalism and Australia’s participation in the globalist institutions engaged in the very scheming he criticized. “Australia does and must always seek to have a responsible and participative international agency in addressing global issues,” he said. “This is a positive and practical globalism. Our interests are not served by isolationism and protectionism.”
Morrison also made clear that he was fine with globalism — just not the type that has so alarmed people across the Western world that the very survival of key globalist institutions is now at risk. “Globalism must facilitate, align and engage, rather than direct and centralize,” the Australian leader said, attempting to redefine globalism as something kinder and gentler than an autocratic push for global government. “As such an approach can corrode support for joint international action.”
Domestically, meanwhile, Morrison touted his government’s efforts to lower taxes and reduce the burden of “over-regulation.”
However, despite the strong rhetoric exposing “negative” globalism, Morrison’s speech seemed almost designed to rescue toxic globalist ideology from an angry public in the West and beyond, a public that is sick and tired of it. For instance, his condemnation of “isolationism” speaks volumes. The term, especially in the United States, is often used by globalists to demonize opposition to globalist schemes involving the UN and even opposition to illegal wars.
Indeed, while he repeatedly touted the need for sovereign nations, his speech appeared to be a poorly disguised effort to keep the public happy while continuing to march forward with globalism. Instead of rejecting “global standards” set by the UN dictators club, for instance, Morrison simply promised to be more involved in the process of creating them. “We cannot afford to leave it to others to set the standards that will shape our global economy,” he said, vowing that Australia would play a more “active role” in globalist rule-setting.
Morrison also continually made reference to the Indo-Pacific “region,” at one point even celebrating what he called the “Pacific family.” Already, Australian authorities have joined a dizzying array of multilateral regional governance schemes including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Pacific Islands Forum, and other sovereignty-shredding mechanisms. Morrison is working to expand and deepen those, just like globalists all over the world in their own regions.
As this magazine has been highlighting for years, leading globalist insiders have publicly articulated the strategy to create their sought-after “New World Order”: Before global government, the world must be divided up under regional governments such as the European Union, the African Union, Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union, and similar regimes.
“The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” explained globalist architect Henry Kissinger, a fervent advocate of what he calls a “New World Order,” in his book World Order.
That sounds exactly like what Morrison is pushing — out of the other side of his mouth.
“ASEAN is at the core of our conception of the Indo-Pacific,” he said in his speech, a reference to the EU-style regime known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “Next month we, our ASEAN partners and other nations in the region hope to conclude the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, embracing 16 economies with a combined population of 3.5 billion and combined GDP of US$25.7 billion. The special importance of this agreement is that it will draw India more substantially into the Indo-Pacific economy.”
Also troubling: Morrison gushed about his government’s increasingly cozy relationship with the most murderous regime in human history.
“Australia does not have to choose between the United States and China,” he claimed, perhaps acting on advice provided by globalists at the pro-Beijing Deep State U.S. HQ known as the Council on Foreign Relations. “China is our Comprehensive Strategic Partner. The strategic importance of our relationship is clear.” Morrison touted China’s “extraordinary economic success,” too, without bothering to mention that most of its advances have been a result of stealing Western technology.
Morrison’s remarks exposing the globalist agenda were not nearly at the level of U.S. President Donald Trump, who told the UN General Assembly last month that the future would not belong to globalists, but to patriots. Nor do they come close to the defense of freedom, self-government, and Christian civilization that has been offered by leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban or Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. But across Europe and beyond, the trend is impossible to miss: More and more national leaders are recognizing that globalism and the Deep State behind it must be smashed before liberty and self-government are destroyed. Everyday people are waking up, too.
Globalists like to imagine that they have Australia conquered. However, the reality is that the people of Australia are not yet ready to submit. They showed this in recent years by electing former Prime Minister Tony Abbot, a liberty-minded Christian and firm opponent of globalism. They showed it by electing senators who openly sought to withdraw from the UN. And they showed it by throwing off the globalist-backed carbon tax, which establishment forces are now working to put back in place.
Like Americans, Australians are catching on.
Unfortunately, though, despite the criticism of “negative” globalism, Morrison appears to be trying to placate angry Australians disgusted by globalism while still advancing globalist schemes under different names.
Even still, it is encouraging that globalists are being forced to play defense in this manner. Australians and Americans must see through the deception, and keep fighting until national sovereignty and individual liberty are secure over the long term. As for Morrison, actions speak louder than words.
Courtesy of The New American