One of the most profound interviews ever published on Cairns News featuring Riccardo Bosi leader of Australia One Party

Link to pass around:

Aisling O’Loughlin of “The Irish Inquiry” produced this extended interview with the inspirational leader of AUSTRALIAONE Party Riccardo Bosi who has big plans and high hopes for Australia’s future.

AUSTRALIAONE is committed to strengthening Australia as a sovereign, self-reliant, Judeo- Christian western democracy which is economically powerful, militarily intimidating, politically free, culturally vibrant, and socially cohesive.

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on January 6, 2022, in Agenda 2030, alan jones, ALP, Andrew Bolt, big pharma, Common Law, Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Covid-19, Depopulation, Donald Trump, Five Eyes, General, New World Order and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 36 Comments.

  1. fairdinkumnews2013

    Having read all the comments for me aapkoning is on the money, Patrick Little of USA x serviceman and Presidential candidate 2020 says the same thing name the jew, i’m half jewish (not my fault) and i agree wholeheartedly, well said aapkoning..


  2. “Judeo-Christian” does not exist. It is a hoax.
    A Christian is a follower of the Christian God, the Creator.
    A Jew is a follower of Satan, the Destroyer.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The communists in QLD have no respect for life or the creator.
    Here are the main parameters of the Termination of Pregnancy Act:

    Abortion “on request” (no questions asked) to 22 weeks gestation.
    Abortion from 22 weeks up to birth is legal based on “social, physical or psychological circumstances”* – so in effect any reason, provided a second doctor signs off. But the second “doctor” can be a second abortionist – there is no requirement for impartiality, and the “sign-off” by the second doctor can be merely a phone call or email – there is no requirement for the second approving doctor to see the woman. Additionally there is no legal penalty if there is no second doctor – a law without a penalty is no law at all.
    Sex-selective abortion is legal~.
    Doctors are compelled to refer for abortion under this law, even if it against their own conscience.
    Absolutely NO “safeguards” for women considering abortion.
    No ban on the particularly brutal partial-birth abortion technique.
    Babies born alive in failed abortions are left to die.^
    No comprehensive data reporting on abortion.
    No requirement to anaesthetize a baby prior to an abortion (including no pain relief given to late-term babies prior to an abortion).

    An utter disgrace!


  4. No cut off period in Qld. Allowed at 9 months. Ed


  5. I’m fairly sure there is a 12 week cut off period for abortions in Australia. Question: Who is buying these body parts and for what purpose?


  6. First of all thanks for not deleting my comments, strengthening Cairns News credibility. I was explained from different directions, don’t waste your time, “your comments would not be approved”. My comments have only been regarding the “current” video discussion! Apart from engaging my brain, I was not including video’s from the past. When I view and listen to an video, I listen also “What is NOT being explained.”
    Silence is golden, but often we have to say something for people to understand what and how we feel/think. Further I liked your comment, (Can’t you people see the forest for the trees?) and I agree, –> because common sense* is not very common…!
    Meaning for a lot of people often word choice in an sentence has to be exactly what we are trying to explain. — > because common sense* is not very common…!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Editor. Yes, Bosi has named almost every perpetrator, you could too, but the fact remains that he openly states on the video that wants to re-set up THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Corp, a foreign registered corporation, along a military organisational structure. Huh? The upcoming election is to decide who will run THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Corp.
    But even the post election process is illegitimate as each member must get a wet ink signature from each constituent of their electorate to be a represent each elector in government.
    An X in a box on a slip of paper is not lawful consent to contract, it is the mark of an illiterate man or woman. If it was lawful consent then everyone’s name would be “X”!
    But if you look at the corporation’s military organisations they haven’t had much success since the Kokoda trail, if at all. Even the contingent he commanded in Afghanistan had to do a tactical withdraw. So where’s his “runs on the board”?
    To ad insult to injury he campaigns around the country under the government flag, huh!!! Bosi hasn’t visited the Shrine of Remembrance to see the flag flying there 24/7, nor noted that, when he was in the military, that same flag on Aussie Military Medals.
    He’s openly stated that he wants to rewrite our Constitution, but to do that he’d have to first abandon his party as political parties cannot participate in our government, it says so in the constitution. All political parties in Australia pretending to be under the actual constitution, not the Australia Act, are guilty of Treason. But who is going to enforce the charge Treason upon them?


  8. In response to VHG, my own thoughts were similar to yours.
    Trump needed a voter base.
    Obviously not the left (that was taken), so it had to be the right.
    The USA, as a so-called Christian Country with a big majority of nominal Christians would give him a team that would take him to victory if he said the right things.

    The details of Political Zionism versus Christianity didn’t matter.
    The Bible he held up didn’t matter.
    Most wouldn’t know the difference.
    Yet when you looked inside Trump’s home, as we were often privy to, the symbolism of a different Order of the Scottish Rite was all around him.

    Bosi is yet to declare what affiliation he is with as a ‘christian’.
    Is he Catholic? Baptist? Nominal? Non practicing?
    Even the Freemasons believe in whatever god they choose.
    If he means he would rather live under Christian principles than Luciferian ones, then many would agree with him.
    But don’t use ‘christianity’ as the bait if it’s not genuine.
    It’s okay to not be a ‘christian’ and represent their core values.

    So while I admire Bosi’s speech which touches the hearts of any decent human, and the desire to live in a world with honesty and truth, the need to claim it as ‘christian’ could be seen as just another marketing tool.
    One that’s getting a big old with Politicians.
    Many a Christian will not be fooled after the last Politician they voted in pulled that hat trick.

    Who exactly is Bosi referring to?
    Who are the Judeo-Christians?
    To put those words together is to not understand the difference.
    Especially for the Jews.


  9. But,

    Voting does not guarantee that your vote becomes the government.

    Voting means that you consent to the dictates of whoever forms government.

    Jeremiah 17:5-8
    New King James Version

    5 Thus says the Lord:

    “Cursed is the man who trusts in man
    And makes flesh his strength,
    Whose heart departs from the Lord.
    A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard:

    by Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)

    To Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware:

    LB.1 SIR – I have read your letter to Rev. Lyman Abbott, in which you express the opinion that it is at least possible for a man to be a legislator (under the Constitution of the United States) and yet be an honest man.

    LB.2 This proposition implies that you hold it to be at least possible that some four hundred men should, by some process or other, become invested with the right to make laws of their own – that is, laws wholly of their own device, and therefore necessarily distinct from the law of nature, of the principles of natural justice; and that these laws of their own making shall be really and truly obligatory upon the people of the United States; and that, therefore, the people may rightfully be compelled to obey them.

    LB.3 All this implies that you are of the opinion that the Congress of the United States, of which you are a member, has by some process or other, become possessed of some right of arbitrary dominion over the people of the United States; which right of arbitrary dominion is not given by, and is, therefore, necessarily in conflict with, the law of nature, the principles of natural justice, and the natural rights of men, as individuals. All this is necessarily implied in the idea that the Congress now possesses any right whatever to make any laws whatever, of its own device – that is, any laws that shall be either more, less, or other than that natural law, which it can neither make, unmake, nor alter – and cause them to be enforced upon the people of the United States, or any of them, against their will.

    LB.4 You assume that the right of arbitrary dominion – that is, the right of making laws of their own device, and compelling obedience to them – is a “trust” that has been delegated to those who now exercise that power. You call it “the trust of public power.”

    LB.5 But, Sir, you are mistaken in supposing that any such power has ever been delegated, or ever can be delegated, by any body, to any body.

    LB.6 Any such delegation of power is naturally impossible, for these reasons, viz: –

    LB.7 1. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over himself; for that would be giving himself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any contract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity. To call such a contract a “Constitution,” or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract.

    LB.8 2. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a “Constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.

    LB.9 These facts, that no man can delegate, or give away, his own natural right to liberty, nor any other man’s natural right to liberty, prove that he can delegate no right of arbitrary dominion whatever – or, what is the same thing, no legislative power whatever – over himself or anybody else, to any man, or body of men.

    LB.10 This impossibility of any man’s delegating any legislative power whatever, necessarily results from the fact that the law of nature has drawn the line – and that, too, a line that can never be effaced nor removed – between each man’s own interest and inalienable rights of person and property, and each and every other man’s inherent and inalienable rights of person and property. It, therefore, necessarily fixes the unalterable limits, within which every man may rightfully seek his own happiness, in his own way, free from all responsibility to, or interference by, his fellow men, or any of them.

    LB.11 All this pretended delegation of legislative power – that is, of a power, on the part of the legislators, so-called, to make any laws of their own device, distinct from the law of nature – is therefore an entire falsehood; a falsehood whose only purpose is to cover and hide a pure usurpation, by one body of men, of arbitrary dominion over other men.

    LB.12 That this legislative power, or power of arbitrary dominion, is a pure usurpation, on the part of those who now exercise it, and not “a trust” delegated to them, is still further proved by the fact that the only delegation of power, that is even professed or pretended to be made, is made secretly – that is, by secret ballot – and not in any open and authentic manner; and therefore not by any men, or body of men, who make themselves personally responsible, as principals, for the acts of those to whom they profess to delegate the power.

    LB.13 All this pretended delegation of power having been made secretly – that is, only by secret ballot – not a single one of all the legislators, so-called, who profess to be exercising only a delegated power, has himself any legal knowledge, or can offer any legal proof, as to who the particular individuals were who delegated it to him. And having no power to identify the individuals who professed to delegate the power to him, he cannot show any legal proof that anybody ever even attempted or pretended to delegate it to him.

    LB.14 Plainly, a man who exercises any arbitrary dominion over other men and who claims to be exercising only a delegated power, but cannot show who his principals are, nor, consequently, prove that he has any principals, must be presumed, both in law and reason, to have no principals; and therefore to be exercising no power but his own. And having, of right, no such power of his own, he is, both in law and reason, a naked usurper.

    LB.15 Sir, a secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a government by conspiracy; in which the people at large can have no rights. And that is the only government we now have. It is the government of which you are a voluntary member and supporter, and yet you claim to be an honest man. If you are an honest man, is not your honesty that of a thoughtless, ignorant man, who merely drifts with the current, instead of exercising any judgment of his own?

    LB.16 For still another reason, all legislators, so-called, under the Constitution of the United States, are exercising simply an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion of their own; and not any authority that has been delegated, or pretended to have been delegated, to them. And that reason is that the Constitution itself (Article 1, Section 6) prescribes that: –
    “For any speech or debate [or vote] in either house, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned [held to any legal responsibility] in any other place.”

    LB.17 This provision makes the legislators constitutionally irresponsible to anybody; either to those on whom they exercise their power, or to those who may have, either openly or secretly, attempted or pretended to delegate power to them. And men who are legally responsible to nobody for their acts, cannot truly be said to be the agents of any body, or to be exercising any power but their own; for all real agents are necessarily responsible both to those on whom they act, and to those for whom they act.

    LB.18 To say that the people of this country ever have bound, or ever could bind, themselves by any contract whatever – the Constitution, or any other – to thus give away all their natural rights of property, liberty, and life, into the hands of a few men – a mere conclave – and that they should make it a part of the contract itself that these few men should be held legally irresponsible for the disposal they should make of those rights, is an utter absurdity. It is to say that they have bound themselves, and that they could bind themselves, by an utterly idiotic and suicidal contract.

    LB.19 If such a contract had ever been made by one private individual to another, and had been signed, sealed, witnessed, acknowledged, and delivered, with all possible legal formalities, no decent court on earth – certainly none in this country – would have regarded it, for a moment, as conveying any right, or delegating any power, or as having the slightest legal validity, or obligation.

    LB.20 For all the reasons now given, and for still others that might be given, the legislative power now exercised by Congress is, in both law and reason, a purely personal, arbitrary, irresponsible, usurped dominion on the part of the legislators themselves, and not a power delegated to them by anybody.

    LB.21 Yet under the pretense that this instrument gives them the right of an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the whole people of the United States, Congress has now gone on, for ninety years and more, filling great volumes with laws of their own device, which the people at large have never read, nor even seen nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal meanings it is morally impossible that they should ever know anything. Congress has never dared to require the people even to read these laws. Had it done so, the oppression would have been an intolerable one; and the people, rather than endure it, would have either rebelled, and overthrown the government, or would have fled the country. Yet these laws, which Congress has not dared to require the people even to read, it has compelled them, at the point of the bayonet, to obey.

    LB.22 And this moral, and legal, and political monstrosity is the kind of government which Congress claims that the Constitution authorizes it to impose upon the people.

    LB.23 Sir, can you say that such an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion as this, over the properties, liberties, and lives of fifty millions of people – or even over the property, liberty, or life of any one of those fifty millions – can be justified on any reason whatever? If not, with what color of truth can you say that you yourself, or anybody else, can act as a legislator, under the Constitution of the United States, and yet be an honest man?

    LB.24 To say that the arbitrary and irresponsible dominion, that is exercised by Congress, has been delegated to it by the Constitution, and not solely by the secret ballots of the voters for the time being, is the height of absurdity; for what is the Constitution? It is, at best, a writing that was drawn up more than ninety years ago; was assented to at the time only by a small number of men; generally those few white male adults who had prescribed amounts of property; probably not more than two hundred thousand in all; or one in twenty of the whole population.

    LB.25 Those men have been long since dead. They never had any right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries; and they never had any over us. Their wills or wishes have no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or wishes of men who lived before the flood. They never personally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered, or dared to sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver, the instrument which they imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open and authentic manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or made themselves personally responsible for the acts of their so-called agents under it, They had no natural right to impose it, as law, upon a single human being. The whole proceeding was a pure usurpation.

    LB.26 In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been “ordained and established” by “We, the people of the United States,” it has never been submitted to them, as individuals, for their voluntary acceptance or rejection. They have never been asked to sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver it, as their free act and deed. They have never signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered it, or promised, or laid themselves under any kind of obligation, to obey it. Very few of them have ever read, or even seen it; or ever will read or see it. Of its legal meaning (if it can be said to have any) they really know nothing; and never did, nor ever will, know anything.

    LB.27 Why is it, Sir, that such an instrument as the Constitution, for which nobody has been responsible, and of which few persons have ever known anything, has been suffered to stand, for the last ninety years, and to be used for such audacious and criminal purposes? It is solely because it has been sustained by the same kind of conspiracy as that by which it was established; that is, by the wealth and the power of those few who were to profit by the arbitrary dominion it was assumed to give them over others. While the poor, the weak, and the ignorant, who were to be cheated, plundered, and enslaved by it, have been told, and some of them doubtless made to believe, that it is a sacred instrument, designed for the preservation of their rights.

    LB.28 These cheated, plundered, and enslaved persons have been made to feel, if not to believe, that the Constitution had such miraculous power, that it could authorize the majority (or even a plurality) of the male adults, for the time being – a majority numbering at this time, say, five millions in all – to exercise, through their agents, secretly appointed, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the properties, liberties, and lives of the whole fifty millions; and that these fifty millions have no rightful alternative but to submit all their rights to this arbitrary dominion, or suffer such confiscation, imprisonment, or death as this secretly appointed, irresponsible cabal, of so-called legislators, should see fit to resort to for the maintenance of its power.

    LB.29 As might have been expected, and as was, to a large degree, at least, intended, this Constitution has been used from the beginning by ambitious, rapacious, and unprincipled men, to enable them to maintain, at the point of the bayonet, an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over those who were too ignorant and too weak to protect themselves against the conspirators who had thus combined to deceive, plunder, and enslave them.

    LB.30 Do you really think, Sir, that such a constitution as this can avail to justify those who, like yourself, are engaged in enforcing it? Is it not plain, rather, that the members of Congress, as a legislative body, whether they are conscious of it or not, are in reality, a mere cabal of swindlers, usurpers, tyrants and robbers? Is it not plain that they are stupendous blockheads, if they imagine that they are anything else than such a cabal? or that their so-called laws impose the least obligation upon anybody?

    LB.31 If you have never before looked at this matter in this light, I ask you to do so now. And in the hope to aid you in doing so candidly, and to some useful purpose, I take the liberty to mail for you a pamphlet entitled:
    “NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE; a Treatise of Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation whatsoever Is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime. Part 1.”

    LB.32 In this pamphlet, I have endeavored to controvert distinctly the proposition that, by any possible process whatever, any man, or body of men, can become possessed of any right of arbitrary dominion over other men, or other men’s property; or, consequently, any right whatever to make any law whatever, of their own – distinct from the law of nature – and compel any other men to obey it.

    LB.33 I trust I need not suspect you, as a legislator under the Constitution, and claiming to be an honest man, of any desire to evade the issue presented in this pamphlet. If you shall see fit to meet it, I hope you will excuse me for suggesting that – to avoid verbiage, and everything indefinite – you give at least a single specimen of a law that either heretofore has been made, or that you conceive it possible for legislators to make – that is, some law of their own device – that either has been, or shall be, really and truly obligatory upon other persons, and which such other persons have been, or may be, rightfully compelled to obey.

    LB.34 If you can either find or devise any such law, I trust you will make it known, that it may be examined, and the question of its obligation be fairly settled in the popular mind.

    LB.35 But if it should happen that you can neither find such a law in the existing statute books of the United States, nor, in your own mind, conceive of such a law as possible under the Constitution, I give you leave to find it, if that be possible, in the constitution or statute book of any other people that now exist, or ever have existed, on the earth.

    LB.36 If, finally, you shall find no such law, anywhere, nor be able to conceive of any such law yourself, I take the liberty to suggest that it is your imperative duty to submit the question to your associate legislators; and, if they can give no light on the subject, that you call upon them to burn all the existing statute books of the United States, and then to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind.

    BOSTON, May 27, 1882

    See the Second Letter


  10. I think Australia One has received constitutional advice up to the level of QC legal direction. They have no need to refer to the 18-K registration of the Commonwealth of Australia as a US corporate 2002. The owner/founder of that 18-K corporate is given as ‘the Australian Government’. That is is the issue.

    In the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (an Act of the UK Parliament), Australia as a colony was admitted to the Commonwealth July 9, 1900. The adoption of our 1901 constitution followed under that Act.

    Click to access cth1_doc_1900.pdf

    Australia One is on solid ground when they advocate for the Australian people as a nation to convene in constitutional convention and pass amendments to the 1901 which will be needed for our founding document – post the abdication of The Crown from Australia.

    On the basis of that convention, the Australian people can declare independence, confer sovereignty upon ourselves and take it to referendum. The UN , of course , would have us believe that only a Communist Entity (such as the UN) can confer sovereignty.

    Australia One is on record against the UN as a Communist Entity.

    In the 1960s, The Crown abdicated from its colonies but it did not necessarily grant independence to them. To some it did – like Northern Rhodesia – created with the stroke of a pen to name one example only. To others not , eg the Southern Crown Colony of Southern Rhodesia. The Republic of Rhodesia had to fight their war of independence against the UN and the armed aggression of the Fourth ComIntern – Operation Mayibuye and its Gook armies under ANC / Communist leadership of USSR and PRC. . And militarily they won. Militarily. But like SA were capitulated to their foes in a UN Charter electoral process and not according to the franchise of their own constitution.


  11. why don’t you? Face to face..


  12. We can’t believe so many supposedly intelligent commentators are so wrong. Bosi has named every main perpetrator
    we can think of apart from this one video. Take some time before engaging brain and look at his other multiple videos. Can’t you people see the forest for the trees? Editor


  13. yer mate but one problem keeps bobbing up. If allied forces did not stop the Japs in New Guinea the matters which you refer to are a moot point. Ed

    Liked by 1 person

  14. There is no evidence of your allegations. Ed


  15. Ask Bosi about his loyalty to Israel first.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. It’s encouraging that a significant number are no longer swallowing the empty promises of manufactured saviours like Bosi.

    We’re aware that Bosi is just one of Australia’s many Israel first candidates.

    Many finally woke up to the fabricated left/right punch and judy show after the bitter disappointment of Trump, ultimately revealed to be a grotesque con man and Rothschild stooge.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. The designation of Australia as a ‘Judeo Christian western democracy’ is of concern. At present, I read this nonsense term as a way to characterize how Australia as a population, which is by and large secular, tends not to identify with formal religious belief and organisation.

    Mateship, fair go and a ‘golden rule’ approach to ethics seems to be how we as a nation generally roll in terms of Basics. If we take the Judeo in ‘Judeo Christian’ to include the Libor gold rate and index as the basis for the rulz, we have factored in the JQ. We are running a reality based programme. In terms of ethical principles, Christianity gets a pass – not necessarily church/es or God botherers or churches with views that contradict liberal ideologies or somebody’s sacred oppression narrative.

    Christian organisations are generally supported if they adhere to the Australian Basics. If they assert Biblical principles like Commandment Numero Uno or the Apostolic mission statement of Jesus Christ “all authority is given to me” – not so much. Liberals will usually give tolerance to religions like Judaism, Islam, Indigenous ceremonial law while pointing out the hypocrisies, scandals etc of the Christians, especially the clergy. For example, we will pay a religious food tax as long as its Kosher and Sharia. If there was a Roman Catholic food tax, I guarantee the toilet paper fights of last year would look quaint. Even when Satanic Ritual Abuse / pedo crimes of the elites in every institution of social influence comes before the public mind , the Roman Catholic Church is still singled out for special mention.

    In terms of the Australian liberal mindset, I think a nonsense term like ‘Judeo Christian’ is an accurate reading of the Australian population on religious matters. And this could change.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I assume that many readers and contributors know of this document;
    See “Australia” means the Commonwealth of Australia and…”
    I doubt Bosi knows the reality that the “Commonwealth of Australia” he believes exists isn’t actually located where he believes it does. See as above. Perhaps he does know.
    The land he, and likely most people here and internationally, don’t know that the Australia they believe to exist is actually Tera Australis which existed on maps for centuries before the English invasion from Norfolk Island which is where the Commonwealth of Australia exists, today.
    We “Australians” are actually part of an invasion and occupation force, unless of course you reside on Norfolk Island.
    Many readers of Cairns News, I assume, will know that THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is actually a US registered corporation in Washington DC, and it’s registered office is also there too.
    Therefore the upcoming “Federal Election” is actually a contest as to who/which group will operate THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Foreign Registered Corporation) and occupy its Head Office in Canberra and continue the invasion.
    Bosi is either ignorant of the above or he isn’t letting any one know that he knows.
    But, for the uniformed, notwithstanding the above, is that The Commonwealth of Australia
    Act 1900 (UK) prohibits political parties to govern or to exert influence over the people.
    Therein lies “the elephant in the room” and the key as to why we have been subjugated for more than two centuries.
    Unless “We The People” address the issues, as above, nothing will change, will likely get much worse, and unknowingly continue the invasion and theft of a country and it’s resources.
    There is a very simple remedy to the above problem; re-register our births as being on Tera Australia which means that we leave THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Corporation (Invasion Force).
    The traditional and actual owners of Tera Australis have invited us all to live under their protection without discrimination, as equals. That’s why they continue their Embassy at the actual Parliament House making the offer as above and to gain redress for the crimes committed against them.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Debra Ratcliffe , What a load of RUBBISH Riccardo Bossi is the only bloke I would trust out of any politician in Australia for starters he is not a politician and I mean every single one of them , there is not one of them that has the balls to tell it as it is and doesnt pull any punches . Take him on and tell him what you said to his face you just might find out how wrong you are about him dont listen to gossip . This bloke is what we need to get this Country back a real man with a back bone and a loyal / honest bloke not a SLIMY POLITICIAN .


  20. Many comments made by: Riccardo Bosi, are very good and truthful/actual, but why not Name and Shame the Devils that are currently ruling the world (By Proxy or not) in almost every country? Not once are the Devils Named by Bosi – why not! Of course, Bosi is right about Pedophilia and the Upper Class Pedophiles being protected. We all know that thanks to brave Senator Bill Heffernan. Bosi is right about the Doctors and the aborted full-term babies, they are indeed immoral and working for Big Pharma. WE ALL know that.
    The aborted babies are needed by BIG PHARMA AS A RESOURCE FOR THEIR PRODUCTS. WE ALL know that but NOT many know that IT is run by the JEWS. BIG PHARMA was created by Carnegie and Rockefeller, A JEW.
    Again, WHO is behind Pedophilia ? Ask the JEWS. Ghislaine Maxwell knows all about it, she was found guilty on charges tied to Epstein’s Pedophile sex trafficking ring, sexual abuse of children. BUT ALL the Court documents naming the Pedophiles like Prince Andrews, Bill Gates, etc., are now LOCKED UP and we will never know the names of those Upper Class Pedophiles.
    As long as Bosi is not IDENTIFYING the Enemy, THE JEW, he is just punching in the air and only creating more confusion.
    Well the Devils are the same who own Big Pharma/Federal reserve/Big Media, (And many others are bending towards the Devils), who financially controls any bank in the world.
    They the Jew’s knows what I’m writing is true… The Jew is so proud to have the world by the Balls. Please “Name and Shame the Damn Devils” — Final can we trust Bosi ?

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Could you please try to send it again? There was no message attached to this email



  22. Yes, here is the link of his website:https: //


  23. I would like Mr. Bosi,who has an extensive military career,to give his views and opinions on David Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre


  24. Did he say that or was it in the introduction? Ed


  25. Australia is part of a global community that has reversed truth and upsidedowned all values that once were an important part of the psyche of humanity. There are no sovereign nations. There is no democracy. There is an hierarchy of power that pyramid like distributes fractions off power to the different chosen castes of a global society.
    The global world and shadow economy is already run by a “Judeo- Christian western democracy” which has become the exact tyranny that has infested this poor image of a human world.
    When looking at this imaginary pyramid structure with the all seeing eye located on the top, where does one imagine to find Bosi or Australia there?
    To wake up is not falling asleep again and dream as there is no tomorrow, though this is the most easy version of avoiding truth as it really happens in this rotten world.
    Militarily intimidating? Yeah right. The coin must continue to spin Bosi!


  26. Your end Brian not ours. Get a better server. Ed


  27. “AUSTRALIAONE is committed to strengthening Australia as a sovereign, self-reliant, Judeo- Christian western democracy ………..”

    Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo-Christian was relatively new:

    “There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other.” (National Jewish Information Service, 6412 W. Olympic Blvd. L.A. CA).

    Sharia and Talmudic Law not Compatible with Christianity

    Lest we also forget, prior to concluding, that Netanyahu once described America in rather stark, hideously arrogant terms,

    “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.”

    Moreover, he labeled “Christian” Zionists — you know, the types who worship ‘Israel’ more than the figure their religion is centered around — as, “scum.

    “Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn

    Liked by 2 people

  28. It’s a shame that this video keeps on stopping and starting in then volume cuts in cuts out, has it been adopted by the system or do you have a clean uninterrupted flow through version?
    Thank you Brian Johnston


  29. Nadir Martello

    Riccardo Bossi might be a loyal Australian; but his dead wrong about what he called a “Judeo- Christian” western democracy. It is an oxymoron for there is no such thing as a “judeo Christian” . . . You have a one or the other for the two are poles apart.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Riccardo Bosi and the Australia One organisation are speaking to the Australian genocide, publishing their plans and organising action. Those who refuse to speak, publish, plan and act on this level are wankers and Judas Goats. The enemies of the Australian nation implementing the genocide from all tiers of government and every institution of social influence are counting on this cohort to keep the covid believers moving in the direction of the new normal [ a prion disease ] and putting their green ticks in a row.


  31. Saw this – good interview..


  32. We would not place those two words in the one sentence. Hinch is a drunken fool. You are wrong. Ed


  33. Debra Ratcliffe

    Many Australians believe Bosi is a plant like Derryn Hinch

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: