Globalism Notes
Came across a site with Australian notes that looks like it may not be up for much longer since half the links don’t work and the articles are so aged, but I found myself copying a lot of notes about the one world government and new world order from the paragraphs and now want to put those “notes” somewhere I can locate them again. These are notes, not the full articles, click the link to go to the original articles.
Graham Strachan
Globalising the bush – 1998: Graham Strachan
As part of the ‘globalisation’ process, the policies of successive Australian governments have helped foreign-owned agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly take over the farming sector. During the early 1970s, Australian family farmers found themselves competing with huge foreign-owned MNCs with massive capital backing. To make the contest ‘equal’, the federal government began removing tariffs, something it committed itself to do by signing various trade agreements, such as the Lima Agreement.
In 1986 the NFF launched a ‘fighting fund’ allegedly to save the family farm, and collected about $15 million from farmers. The money was never used for the stated purpose, but was put into a trust fund where it apparently remains to this day (nobody seems to know). In the meantime, family farmers were told they had to become ‘more competitive’, they had to ‘get big or get out’.
So they did. They borrowed money to get big, then they went broke paying the interest, and got out. 60% of the Australian-owned farming sector has been wiped out. In the 1960s there were 300,000 farms, now there are around 100,000. At the end of 1997 remaining farmers were leaving the land at the rate of 35 per week, according to Primary Industry Minister John Anderson himself. The rest are heavily in debt. In mid-1996 they owed $18 billion to banks, an average of $133,000 per farm.
A United Nations conference on managing the world’s fresh water supplies agreed in Paris on 21 March 1998, that water should no longer be treated as an essential staple to be supplied free of cost, but paid for as a commodity. The conference appealed for more ‘market forces’ in managing the world’s water supplies. MNCs and investors are about to be allowed to own the world’s fresh water, and believe it or not, that includes the water in private tanks and dams. Satellite surveillance is already being used to detect ‘unlicenced’ dams on farms in Queensland. Welcome to the new world order.
Globalist Illusion – 1998 – Graham Strachan
On December 1, 1997, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer addressed journalists at the Canberra Press Club, confirming that the Howard government was committed to ‘globalising’ Australia. The hidden message to the new-style journalists was to go out and ‘sell’ the idea to the public. So just what is ‘globalism’, now that the sentence has been pronounced on the Australian people?
The answer is that ‘globalism’ can mean a couple of things, one of them innocuous, the other definitely a cause for alarm. The lack of clarity has been made possible by the undemocratic manner in which globalism is being implemented. Since there never was a question of the people of the world being asked whether or not they wanted it, a clear definition of what globalism means was unnecessary. Those ‘in the know’ knew anyway, and nobody else matters nowadays. That’s ‘rationalism’. Shades of things to come.
The ‘g’ word was subtly slipped into the language by the media, whose policy is to tell the public as little as possible about globalism until it is too late for them to stop it.
The globalist elites maintain a pretence that it has all been agreed to, while their strategy is ‘just do it’. If anybody challenges what you’re doing, ‘deny you’re doing it’. If that doesn’t work, ‘tell ‘em anything’. So what does ‘globalism’ mean?
At one level it can mean increased cooperation between independent self-governing nations for a more peaceful and ecologically sustainable world. This is the view clung to by naive academics, school children, and other idealists. It is also the view peddled by journalists, who don’t believe a word of it. On the other hand it can mean the political, legal, economic and social integration of all the nations of the world into a global order of ‘interdependent member states’ under one world government: an expanded United Nations.
Central to the meaning of globalism is the concept of ‘global governance’. This is no conspiracy theory. There has been a Commission on Global Governance since 1992, and a United Nations-sponsored conference on Global Governance is scheduled for this year. So what is ‘global governance’?
To these people globalisation means ‘political and economic integration’, not only of the Americas but of all the countries of the world into a new global order under one world government. ‘Isolationism’ is the new term for a country wanting to mind its own business, go its own way and not be ‘globalised’. ‘Protectionism’ is the word for a country protecting its industries, economic assets, and the well-being of its people from exploitation by outsiders. Those things, with are vital components of national independence and sovereignty, are now forbidden. The globalists have decided,. What’s more, globalization is ‘unstoppable’, and ‘irreversible’. Those who resist, will ‘make things worse’ for themselves. Nice future.
Globalism and Democracy – 1998 – Graham Strachan
On 17 February 1950, Council on Foreign Relations member James Warburg told US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it by conquest or consent.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State was quoted in Time Magazine, July 20th, l992, as saying, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.” Where do these ideas figure in Paul Kelly’s assessment of the chances for democracy in the 21st century? Well, not at all. Interestingly, Kelly quotes from the CFR’s main journal, Foreign Affairs at least twice, yet nowhere does he raise the idea of world government. Nor does he mention that Fukuyama’s view plays right into the hands of those promoting it: permanent, non-democratic everlasting world government. The end of history, and of democracy.
Globalism, neo-tribalism and false reality – 1999 – Graham Strachan
Brock Chisolm, former Director of the (United Nations) World Health Organization, is quoted as saying, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” [GWB quote of the day, 7/7/1999]. ‘Remove from the minds of men’? Doesn’t that sound like mental conditioning?
Some years ago another hero of the globalist-Left, B.F.Skinner, in his book ‘Beyond Freedom and Dignity’, mounted a concerted attack on what he termed ‘autonomous man’. What was ‘autonomous man’? Autonomous man was an independently thinking and acting, morally responsible, individual human being.
People can be persuaded to reject their morality and to adopt values actually threatening to themselves and their society. They can be induced to believe the butchery of defenceless civilians by NATO is a ‘humanitarian action’, that war-making is ‘peacekeeping’, and that it is wrong to judge people who do such things because moral rules are merely an outmoded form of social control, a conspiracy by naughty people from the old individualist order. Faced with ideas seemingly too difficult to grapple with, bicamerals will reject them out of hand as ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘just another person’s opinion’, and move on to easier things, like sport or gossip.
It has been obvious for some time, though trusting Australians were reluctant to accept it, that THE Australian government is no longer AN Australian government. It no longer represents the interests of the Australian people as citizens of an independent sovereign nation. It conforms to the requirements of the international bankers acting through the IMF in economics, and of the international community acting through the United Nations bureaucracies in regard to social policy. Increasingly it ignores or rides roughshod over the real wishes of the Australian people in its haste to globalise their country, to hand over the ownership and control of it to ‘institutions of global governance’.
This federal government is sneaking or steamrolling a whole range of measures through the parliament (and some not through the parliament) without proper public exposure or debate, and to which the majority of electors are clearly opposed, despite spurious claims of ‘mandates’: the GST, the sale of Telstra and other public assets, the soon to be revived MAI, the signing of the Fifth Protocol to the GATS, the censorship of the Internet, the new ASIO Act, the Republic and proposed changes to the Constitution, the manipulation of the political process to exclude One Nation, and the list goes on and on. All of these measures serve to further the globalisation programme, and it is all being done in a big hurry, as though the government has a deadline to meet.
It might be thought that the ‘vast majority’ of Australians have so successfully been dumbed down by the media that they are beyond caring, that there is no longer any such thing as ‘the interests of the Australian people’. But there is a section of the people, perhaps 2-3 million and rapidly growing, who do care, and do have an interest in the future of their country. Those people, who are entitled not only to expect their duly elected government to represent their interests, but also to be truthful about what it is doing, are becoming increasingly alarmed at what is unfolding in Canberra. In particular they are becoming aware that what this government says, and what it does, are increasingly at odds. They are starting to suspect not only that this government is not to be trusted, but that it represents a very real threat to their country, their national sovereignty, and their basic freedoms.
Under classical democracy the ruling elite are supposed to carry out the wishes of the electorate, while under rule by elite, the elite decide what to do and force the masses to do it.
The result is this false theory, this ideology, which enables governments to globalise their countries without the approval of the voters, or even without their knowledge, and still be able to claim they have a ‘democracy’
The illusion of choice. Since democracy implied choice, something had to be found to create the impression the people were choosing something. The answer lay in alleged ‘competition between elites’ for power and for votes. The masses could still have their elections, but they would choose between ‘competing elites’. That way it could be claimed that they still had ‘democracy’, even though they had no real say as to policy or anything meaningful. ‘Competition between elites’, it was claimed, would also prevent any one elite gaining and retaining a monopoly on power, providing the necessary checks and balances required by democracy. Sound good? And if that wasn’t enough, the masses were welcome to aspire to positions in the ruling elites (make a play for a slice of the action, so to speak) so they were not really excluded. And there it was: a masterpiece of theoretical reasoning, democratic elitism, democratic dictatorship, the irreconcilable reconciled. The masses could now be told, “You’ve got democracy, so shut up!”.
The Global Reign of Terror – 1999 – Graham Strachan
What is not fully realised is that the attack on Yugoslavia by NATO forces officially ushered in the new world order and the reign of terror which will characterise the twenty-first century. It could be said that the move to world government is all over bar the shooting.
A large segment of the world’s population is still largely unaware of it. They have been lulled into a kind of sleep-walking state by world media owned and controlled by a handful of men and women, all of whom are committed to a rearranged world in which they will wield considerable power through the control of public opinion. To achieve their aims those people are prepared to use their media outlets to withhold, distort and falsify information, and to hire puppet journalists prepared to do likewise for money. The manipulation of information is already enabling the one-world warmongers to create an entirely false reality, and to portray human atrocities committed by themselves as ‘humanitarian actions’. The moral obscenity has been promoted that killing people to prevent people killing people is morally good. So morally degenerate has Western society become, starting at the top, that such a proposition hardly even raises an eyebrow.
The first President of the World is William Jefferson Clinton, impeached and discredited in the eyes of all but his Democratic Party faithful, enthusiastically assisted by Britain’s Tony Blair. Globalist collaborators have been manoeuvred into top positions in all NATO countries, and their armed forces are now serving to impose one-world government by force, starting in the Balkans. When Bill Clinton, in his inaugural address, as much as declared himself to be a globalist who intended to establish world government by executive order, nobody paid much attention. But he has done just that. Clinton now rules his own country as a dictator, ignoring the US Constitution unless it serves his purposes. The American Congress is paralysed by what appears to be fear. The congressmen are probably aware that the reign of terror has begun.
There were two possible routes to world government.
The first way was to have openly declared the United Nations to be the world government, and to enforce its authority with a world army formed by placing the United States armed forces under UN control. This presented two problems. First of all, it would have alerted the people of the world that world government was a reality and not a ‘conspiracy theory’ and they may have resisted, particularly Americans, who tend to be nationalistic and who are not yet fully disarmed. Secondly, Third World countries are members of the UN, and many harbour anti-American sentiments. Millions of people have died and continue to die in the Third World while bankers based in Wall Street demand $ billions in interest payments on unrepayable debt. Third World countries could not be counted on to approve moves for a world government which clearly favours American interests.
The second route was to use the Clinton Administration as the defacto world government, and an expanded NATO as an interim world army. Then at the appropriate time Clinton would become Secretary-General of the United Nations and President of the World, and NATO forces would be placed under UN command to enforce the world terror regime and squash resistance. The second route was chosen.
The upshot of it all is that Bill Clinton is now the nominal World President, his administration is the defacto world government, and NATO is its private army, its ‘peacekeeping’ force. The United Nations in the meantime is maintaining a low profile, but the ultimate objective is the establishment of U.N. sovereignty.
This war is not between America and the communist bloc (the very same bankers finance both) it is between the permeated governments of America, China, Russia, and the NATO countries, and the so-called ‘ordinary’ people of the world.
In the meantime most of those ‘ordinary’ people are living in a manufactured reality. The media portray NATO’s actions as necessary to prevent Europeans from killing each other, yet it is NATO which is doing most of the killing. While claiming it wants to usher in an era of humanitarian treatment for all Europeans, NATO is bombing bridges over the Danube, tying up the commerce of a quarter of Europe, and systematically destroying Serbia’s economy and civilian infrastructure. While claiming it wants to protect the Kosovan refugees, NATO has still failed even to provide safe and sanitary refugee camps for them, the only apparent explanation being that television pictures showing suffering Kosovars are more important to maintain the public perception that the war is just, than the plight of the refugees themselves. On the other hand, while claiming to be bombing Yugoslavia to prevent human rights violations, NATO is ignoring human rights violations by its own members, such as Kurdish ethnic cleansing by Turkey.
In reality this war and the new NATO policy are not about human rights, they are about power and world domination. After the job has been done, and the Serbs pounded into submission, NATO then proposes to use money extorted from the world’s taxpayers to rebuild what it has destroyed. Since all countries which will be called upon to contribute are already deeply in debt to the international bankers, the so-called ‘money’ to do the rebuilding will be borrowed from those very same bankers at interest. The new millennium will be ushered in with people throughout the world not only living under the shadow of tyrannical world government and the threat of ideological cleansing through ‘humanitarian’ bombing, they will be economically enslaved forever.
Since it is too much to expect puppet governments like Australia’s, busily delivering their countries into the new world order as fast as their treachery can carry them, to protect their people from the coming reign of terror, people worldwide had better start asking themselves a few pertinent questions. Like who will decide from now on what kind of act justifies a NATO invasion? Who will decide which country NATO will attack next?
The prospect does not look good. Since the end of World War II, the defacto world government has bombed:
- China 1945-46
- Korea 1950-53
- China 1950-53
- Guatemala 1954
- Indonesia 1958
- Cuba 1959-60
- Guatemala 1960
- Congo 1964
- Peru 1965
- Laos 1964-73
- Vietnam 1961-73
- Cambodia 1969-70
- Guatemala 1967-69
- Grenada 1983
- Libya 1986
- El Salvador 1980s
- Nicaragua 1980s
- Panama 1989
- Iraq 1991-99
- Bosnia 1995
- Sudan 1998
- Afghanistan 1998
- Yugoslavia 1999
World President Clinton has despatched US forces to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries on 33 occasions during his brief reign.
As George Orwell wrote in the book ‘1984’, in the new world order ‘war is peace’, ‘freedom is slavery’, and ‘two and two make five’. The global reign of terror has begun.
John Wilson
No Juries, no Justice
The people have sovereignty. Our power has been taken away from us. The Courts Legislation (Civil Juries) Act has been passed and is in operation.
It takes away your right to trial by jury.
What is the purpose of a court? To administer justice, not to enforce the law. The reason we have juries is because they are the voice and conscience of the people. Juries overturn bad laws. Judges say they can’t do that but they have had that right since juries were first formed.
Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. That comes from the Oxfords dictionary of law. We are to take our grievances to court and yet the Supreme Court of NSW has actually put out a leaflet that says “Do not bring your grievances to court.” They are undermining the very system.
According to English common law, a judge and a jury constitute a court. There cannot be a judge alone unless you say, “I choose not to have a jury.” This is in legislation. Both the plaintive and the defendant must agree not to have a jury. In my case they will not allow a jury because I will subpoena the judges and question them in front of the jury.
Bevan O’Regan
Your Rights – Bevan O’Regan
I made the comment to a NSW Farmers meeting that “A modern statute of law cannot overrule an ancient law”. This resulted from the NSW Conservation Act and the Wilderness Act claiming to remove our rights. They took me at my word and said go and get some proof. I faxed a QC friend in London. He returned an answer. The opinion boosted the right to farm. Property law governs use. Western NSW has western lands lease. On those leases there is a clause that says you can’t plough the land and you can’t cut trees unless the Minister gives you permission. You go into the lease knowing this.
There is now a National Parks proposal called the 30,30,40. You can only farm 30%, graze 40% and shut 30% up for posterity.
29 properties have been claimed as wilderness in the Narrabri area. There is an 800-year-old forest law that covers the right to farm. It is article 29 of Magna Carta. We have to disprove these quasi acts of parliament.
“Impacts of Native Vegetation & Biodiversity Regulations” | 2003 Written Submission | Verbal Submission
MEMBER OF “CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COMMITTEE” AND THE NARRABRI SHIRE COUNCIL
My submission is based on the premise that Sepp 46 and the Native Vegetation & Conservation Act 1997 is flawed in many instances particularly where it contravenes Local Governments use of States Planning Act called the l 979 Environmental & Assessment Act (1979 E. P. & A. Act). I will be as brief as possible. Land & land use is the charta of Local Government.
In 1976 a three year inquiry was carried out called the Royal Commission into Land Tenure. Sir Justice Else-Mitchell chaired this inquiry. The “Inquiry” was commissioned under Letters Patent by Sir John Kerr, Governor General.
The l979 E. P. & A. Act was a direct result of this enquiry as a guide to continuing and existing use of land & property rights. Local Government held and holds the key to property rights and issues certificates (S149) called 149 certificates to guarantee “use”. “Existing use” in prohibited areas is (S106), “Continuing use” is explained in (S107) and guaranteeing continuing this use is (S109B).
My arguments are against the premise that the 1997 N. V. & C Act can overrule the E.P. & A. Act. The 1979 E.P. & A, Act must take precedent. Further, relating to the Royal Commission of Enquiry of 1976 the pertinent section is the chapter on compensation.
As we know all Acts of Parliament are bound by Common Law and the history of Common Law is via the Magna Carta. On “Compensation” the Commission of Enquiry is explicit when it says;- “Thus Magna Carta 1215 C29, guarantees that no free man shall be dissiesed of his freehold or liberties or free customs, but, by the law of the land.”
This simply means with attempting to lock up land use under Vegetation Laws, it is subject to compensation forever – a cost no country could ever afford. With regard to the Wilderness Act this has now made inroads into land values in our Shire of Narrabri. Almost 22,000 ha of land has been clouded under a veil of wilderness. This land is now unsaleable and so the rating value is decreased very measurably,
Verbal Notes
MR O’REGAN: I belong to a committee called the Constitutional Property Rights Committee which is only a bit over 12 months old, but I’ve been a councillor with Narrabri Shire Council for 22 years, a farmer for about 50, and so I reckon I’ve got a bit of experience in this field. Common law is the old law.
Statutes have the ability to override the common law. However, unless there is an unavoidable conflict between statutory provisions and the principle of common law, courts will interpret statute as not affecting the common law.
On the next couple of pages it states that: A feature of the duty of care under common law is that irrespective of the form in which it appears it is owed to individuals, not to the environment.
MR O’REGAN: But in 1979 it was legislated that natural justice protects developed assets. The High Court determined – and if I could just read what the High Court did determine in that time:
I reiterate that very loudly: land and land use is the charter of local government. Local government dictates what you can do under the zoning laws and those laws are usually – and right across New South Wales, and I’ve checked about six or seven in Queensland, Rural 1 A says that no development consent is needed for agriculture.
Thus Magna Carta 1215 guaranteed that no free man shall be deceased of his freehold or liberties or free customs but by the law of the land.
It goes on to say that:
So the greater moreover is the regard of the law for private property that it will not authorise the least violation of it, not even for the general good of the community.
Ray Smyth
The New Queensland Constitution – Ray Smyth
We get our rights from God. The Queen is there to uphold our rights and we form a little government to look after those rights. That little government is getting out of control.
The pillars of private property are
(1) the right to sell, gift, and bequeath your property.
(2) The right of unrestricted use of your property.
(3) The right to deny access to your property.
(4) The right to hold your property without impost.
If any of those pillars are removed, theft has occurred.
In Queensland, Mr Beatty is virtually a dictator and has decided to rip up our constitution and rewrite it. The question is who owns the constitution? Does it belong to the administration of the day or is it a more enduring thing rooted in the historical heritage of the nation? That is the question that is facing us today.
If golfers like to play golf with others rather than by themselves, they gather to form a golf club. Rules are agreed to and a constitution is written and a committee is formed to administer the rules. What would happen if the committee decided that golf is not good for the members? Baseball is better. They reprint the rules that golf can no longer be played; baseball is the game. That is the situation in Queensland. They have changed the rules and surrounded themselves with police and the judiciary and they spit in your face and say baseball is the game.
What are we to do; gather together as a group and throw this crowd out? Take our clubs and go to NSW? Most people in QLD will learn to love baseball. We are only a small group. There was only a small group at Marathon and Marathon changed the world. There was only a small group at Valley Forge but that changed the history of America. But it was done by people who were willing to stand up and say, “I hold my rights from God, not from you, and I will stand on my rights to the death.”
Law should reflect reality. The right to self-defence is innate. No politician can take it from you. That is the common law. We must now have this passed through parliament again to restate it.
Jeremy Lee
New World Order – 2000 – Jeremy Lee
Yes, it’s another global summit; this time in the Swiss Alpine village of Davos, near the Austrian border, where the world’s corporate, political and intellectual elite are gathering for the next six days to discuss how to “meet the challenge of creating responsible globality“, while exchanging business cards and doing a little skiing.
“The invitation-only conference for which 1,000 of the world’s biggest companies pay up to $US22,000 ($34,375) in fees to attend – forum corporate sponsors or “partners” can fork out between $US70,000 and $US250,000 – makes no recommendations to governments and releases no communiques..
Who will be there? Among those mentioned are President Clinton, the world’s richest man Bill Gates, as well as Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan, and Kerry Packer’s heir James. A few Australian multinational heads, including BHP’s Paul Anderson, Southcorp’s Graham Kraehe, Hugh Morgan from Western Mining, Richard Pratt of Pratt Industries, head of Telstra Ziggy Switkowski, and Fairfax CEO Fred Hilmer. Hilmer, who designed Australia’s Competition Policy, will no doubt be comparing notes with Mario Monti, the European Competition Commissioner. Both Mike Moore, head of the World Trade Organisation and Nicholas Oppenheimer, from the global diamond monopoly’s De Beers will be there.
On the world stage Australia was ranked first for privatisation in the utility sector and a strong second for total privatisation,” Thomson Financial says ….. The firm notes that Australia experienced one of the highest levels of foreign takeovers, which accounted for half of the total value. Of this $30 billion, $12 billion came from the US in 83 deals, $8 billion from the UK in 74 deals and $3.5 billion from Hong Kong in four deals ….”
Over $1,500 for every living Australian in more foreign ownership during 1999! Our government is really excelling itself! We note that Prime Minister Howard has again raised the policy of selling the remaining 51 per cent of Telstra that Australians still own. That should make him and Treasurer Costello even more popular!
Collection of Politicians & Insiders warning about the NWO or Great Reset
Media denies NWO existence, whilst globalists rub it in our faces. Here is a post just jot-pointing down various warnings we’ve had from politicians and other insiders about the NWO, Great Reset, & other Agendas that are playing out in our world right now.
Globalism Notes
Came across a site with Australian notes that looks like it may not be up for much longer since half the links don’t work and the articles are so aged, but I found myself copying a lot of notes about the one world government and new world order from the paragraphs and now want to put those “notes” somewhere I can locate them again.
[1991] New World Order Australia | Jeremy Lee
I think this video is a good starting place for most Australians finding out for the first time that this is indeed a ‘real thing’ that we need to be concerned about. This is Jeremy Lee’s account back in 1991 of how he first discovered the New World Order and how Australia had agreed to implement it, along with all United Nations countries.
[1995] IMF, World Bank | Jeremy Lee
How & when money changed to IOU’s, International Monetary Fund, The World Bank – Jeremy Lee, 1995
[1991] Planned Destruction of the Australian Constitution | Jeremy Lee
Jeremy Lee attends a seminar in Melbourne in 1991, to explain the deliberate attempt to take the decisions out of the hands of Australians and into a Centralized One World Government, via a Trojan Horse which is the Human Rights Commission by the United Nations, and via deception from our politicians to remove the power from the people as well as destroy our Primary Producing industries, to bring in the New World Order.
[1992] New World Order: Solution or Seduction? | Jeremy Lee
In this Lecture from 1992 Jeremy Lee outlines the United Nations NWO plans for both the Australian Economy including the destruction of all our local businesses through the insane Lima Declaration, and the gradual change in values, bringing about a new One World Religion, via the new One World Government through the United Nations that removes the Australian Constitution, and leading to where no Australian will have any equity in their own country. He warned us back then. We didn’t listen.
One World Government, New World Order (So hard to believe, and so devastating to learn that it’s true)
Our problem is we think it would’ve been on the news if it was something we needed to know – introduction to the NWO Australia.
Or Browse: New World Order | Great Reset | Rigged Agenda
Site Notifications/Chat:
- Telegram Post Updates @JourneyToABetterLife (channel)
- Telegram Chatroom @JourneyBetterLifeCHAT (say hi / share info)
- Gettr Post Updates @chesaus (like fakebook)
Videos:
Aussies Or Buy me a Coffee (PayPal)
![[Comedy/Truth] Pauline Hanson Explains Australian Politics](https://pennybutler.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Hansonexplainspolitics-777x437.jpg)
