The Australian Green Party has now assumed the balance of power in the Australian Senate, allowing them great potential power in policy making. The Greens, founded in 1992, are traced back to the 1970’s Club of Rome era United Tasmanian Group, the world’s first “green” party. Their moniker is self-explanatory, the basis of their charter being ecology and the environmental movement.
Green Party principles state that global warming, er, climate change is the greatest threat to humanity with only ten to fifteen years remaining to provide a solution. “Australia is ideally placed to lead the world in this challenge and the Greens are committed to Australia taking that lead.” They also want to limit CO2 and eliminate coal use, despite the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. Furthermore, they want to establish a “low-carbon economy” and force nations to sign binding environmental treaties restructuring the whole of society, economy and politics. They state “climate change will result in the displacement of people, creating environmental refugees and intensifying the threat of regional and global conflict.”.
In actuality, climate change policy will result in great displacement, mass impoverishment and genocide. Much has been said by real scientists on these issues such as the Sky Dragon Slayers, Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts and thousands of others. The policy documents from the Club of Rome and the United Nations to Ecoscience detail their true agenda, in their own words. Historian and economist Webster Tarpley recently gave a lecture dissecting this documentation revealing their agenda of deindustrialization, mass involuntary sterilization, global depopulation and the establishment of what they call a “planetary regime” or what Senator Brown calls a “world parliament.” India is already giving away cars in exchange for male and female sterilization.
Senator Brown: World Government is Real, No Conspiracy Theory
Australian Green leader, Senator Bob Brown, recently unveiled his hope for a “world parliament.”  Corporate commentators and spineless journalists proclaim the idea of a world parliament is something now to be treated seriously, not laughed at. Authors and researchers discussing long laid out plans for world parliament and critical of the movement, consistently having been right on the money, have been laughed at for so long and called derogatory terms. Now we are to stop laughing and take it serious, for the time of world government is nigh.
Senator Brown believes we are inevitably moving toward a world community or “global, uh, parliamentary…governance” while deriding conspiracy talk. One will notice how all politicians who make public mention of this agenda always stutter before they proclaim “global, uh, governance.” On a personal note, I was given similar treatment. In university, one of my professors (a psychologist) had summoned my classmate and me for coffee. Strange, but we realized he had been secretly evaluating our sanity due to the matters we were discussing in class. Upon complaining to the university head, we were given a final lecture by the latter. He derided conspiracy talk and such. However, he then went on to state that there was nothing wrong with or believing in a “world state”, that it would be here in five, ten or fifteen years. Hence, the tactic is to label any critic as crazy. The fact that there can be no debate as to the viability of world government de facto demonstrates its undemocratic nature. It does not matter that the majority do not want it, they will get it.
Though Senator Brown’s party voted against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he goes on to state that “if we can invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy, surely we can peacefully get behind moves to have a global governance.” He adds a cherry on top by furthering that the Tobin Tax would end poverty. He is right, there is a pattern. The Iraq war was an outright lie, where the Bush Administration fabricated evidence and put into force war plans long drawn up. Afghanistan saw them go after a non-existing boogeyman, even on their own payroll, to fulfill Sir Halford Mackinder’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan to dominate the Heartland and cull the world’s heroin profits. In similar vein, global warming, I mean, climate change is based on fabricated intelligence and ulterior motives.
Walter Russell Mead writes in a recent essay, that a Global Green Carbon Treaty (GGCT) “is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. The green plan is a plan for a global constitution because the treaty will regulate economic production in every country on earth.”
Australia could be providing model climate framework just as the European Union laid the foundational model for regional integration, with its “extensive experience at the regional level” that is being drawn upon to integrate Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia via “the Pan-African Parliament, the Mercosur Parliament and there is also the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that includes 56 states and stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok.” Australia is attempting to spearhead the establishment of the carbon tax and other climate policy even as the EU Carbon Climate Exchange collapses, just as it did in Chicago.
If anyone still doubts the genocidal nature of climate change policy, consider their idea to massacre one million camels. What will happen to the millions of Central Asian herders whose animals are their lifeblood when the world parliament comes for their camels?
 Mead, Walter Russell. “The Failure of Al Gore: Part Deux.” The American Interest Blog Directory. 27 June 2011. <http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux>.